Skip to main content

Full text of "The trial of Hawley Harvey Crippen, ed. with notes and an introduction"

See other formats


u 




(/ 



TRotable English Griate 



Hawley Harvey Crippen 



NOTABLE TRIALS SERIES. 



H. H. Crippen. Edited by Filson Young. 
Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan Smith 

Advocate. 
Dr. Pritchard. Edited by William Roughead. 

The Stauntons. Edited by J. B. Allay, Barrister- 
at-Law. 

Franz Muller. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
The Annesley Case Edited by Andrew Lang. 
Lord Lovat. Edited by David N. Mackay. 
Captain Porteous. Edited by William Roughead. 
William Palmer. Edited by Geo. H. Knolt, 

Barrister-at-Law. 

Mrs. Maybricfc. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
Dr. Lam son. Edited by H. L. Adam. 
Mary Blandy. Edited by William Roughead. 

City of Glasgow Bank Directors. Edited by 

William Wallace, Advocate. 
Deacon Brodie. Edited by William Roughead. 
James Stewart. Edited by David N. Mackay. 
A, J. Monson. Edited by J. W. More, Advocate. 
Oscar Slater. Edited by William Roughead. 

Eugene Marie Chantrelle. Edited by A. Duncan 

Smith, Advocate. 
The Douglas Cause. Edited by A. Francis 

Steuart, Advocate. 
Mrs. M'Lachlan Edited by William Roughead. 

Eugene Aram. Edited by Eric Watson, 
Barrister-at-Law. 

J. A. Dickman. Edited by S. O. Rowan- 
Hamilton, Barrister-at-Law. 

The Seddons. Edited by Filson Young. 

Sir Roger Casement. Edited by Geo. H. Knott, 
Barrister-at-Law. 



2N PREPARATION. 
The Wainwrights. Edited by H. B. Irving. 
Thurtell and Hunt Edited by Eric Watson. 
Burke and Hare. Edited by William Roughead. 

Particulars may be had from the Publishers. 




[Photo, by Ruasrll. 

The Right Hon. Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England. 




3? 

The Trial of 



Hawley Harvey Crippen 

'I/O 

EDITED 

WITH NOTES AND AN INTRODUCTION 

BY 

FILSON YOUNG 

Editor of " The Trial of the Seddons" S-v., &c. 




EDINBURGH AND LONDON 

WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY, LTD. 



PRINTED BY 

WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY, LTD. 

GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 

1920 



KV 

W? 

C7S T7 



TO 

SIR BASIL HOME THOMSON, C.B. 

IN KESPECT FOR HIS WORK 

AND IN 
FRIENDSHIP FOR HIMSELF 



PREFATORY NOTE. 

THE "Notable Trials Series" is now well enough established, and has been 
sufficiently welcomed by the legal as well as the general reader, to make 
unnecessary any explanation of the appearance in it of the trial of Dr. 
Crippen. In a case of such world-wide notoriety, the theme inevitably of 
much speculative and imperfectly informed discussion, it is more than 
ever useful to have the facts, in so far as the trial revealed them, set forth 
exactly as they were unfolded to the judge and jury; and it has been 
possible in the Introduction to enlarge upon some other aspects of the case 
which were not, and could not, be discussed at the Old Bailey. If the 
trial is less interesting from a legal point of view than some others, this 
defect is atoned for by the extraordinary human and dramatic interest with 
which the story is packed, and which has placed Dr. Crippen in the front 
rank, so to speak, of convicted murderers. 

I have to thank Sir Edward Marshall Hall, K.C., Sir Richard Muir, 
Mr. Herbert Austin, Clerk of the Central Criminal Court, the Home Office 
authorities, the Governor of Pentonville Prison, Dr. Rylance, Crippen's 
former business partner, Inspector Mitchell, Mr. (late Inspector) Dew, 
and Mrs. Harrison for information, material, and assistance in arriving 
at the conclusions on which the narrative part of the Introduction is based. 

A. B. P. Y. 

LONDON, November, 1919. 



CONTENTS. 





PAGE 


Leading Dates in the Crippen Case, 
The Trial 


XXXV 


FIRST DAY TUESDAY, 
Mr. Muir's Opening Speech for the Crown, 

Evidence for th 


18TH OCTOBER, 1910. 


3 


e Prosecution. 




Frederick Lown, ... - 9 
Dr. John H. Burroughs, - - 10 
Mrs. C. Martinetti, - - 12 
Mrs. L. Smythson, 17 
Mrs. T. Hunn, - - - - 18 
Bruce Miller, - 19 
Miss Melinda May, 23 
Mrs. E. Jackson, - - - 24 


F. Pedgrift, - 
E. W. Stuart, 
C. J. Williams, 
F. Hayles, 
Miss M. L. Curnow, 
G. M. Rylance, 
W. Long, 
E. Brett, - 


- 26 
- 26 
- 26 
27 
- 27 
- 29 
- 30 
- 32 


SECOND DAY WEDNESDAY, 19iH OCTOBER, 1910. 




Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 




W. Dew, 33 
Statement, by Accused, 34 
W. Dew (continued), 39 


A. F. Leverton, 
D. Gooch, 
Dr. A. J. Pepper, - 


- 47 

47 
47 


THIRD DAY THURSDAY, 20rn OCTOBER, 1910. 




Evidence for the Prosecution (concluded). 




Dr. B. H. Spilsbury, - 62 
Dr. T. Marshall, .... 64 
A. Robinson, 67 
R. Thompson, 67 
C. Pitt, 67 
Dr. W. H. Willcox, ... 67 


Dr. A. P. Luff, 
C. Hetherington, 
H. Kirby, 


- 74 
- 75 
- 76 

77 


Mrs. A. Harrison, - 


- 77 


Mr. Tobin's Opening Speech for the Defence, - 


- 78 


Evidence for the Defence. 


87 



CONTENTS. 

FOURTH DAY FRIDAY, 21si OCTOBER, 1910. 

Evidence for the Defence (concluded). 



H. H. Crippen (recalled), - - 94 
Dr. G. M. Turnbull, - - - 130 



Dr. R. C. Wall, .... 138 
Dr. A. W. Blyth, - - - - 141 



Further Evidence for the Prosecution. 

W. J. Chilvers, - 144 

Mr. Tobin's Closing Speech for the Defence, 145 

FIFTH DAY, SATURDAY, 22ND OCTOBER, 1910. 

Further Evidence for the Defence. 

PAGE 

H. H. Crippen (recalled), - 151 

Mr. Muir's Closing Speech for the Crown, - 153 

The Lord Chief Justice's Charge to the Jury, 161 

The Verdict, - 183 

The Sentence, 183 



APPENDICES. 

Appendix A Captain Kendall's Message, 187 

Appendix B Published Statement of Dr. Crippen, 188 

Appendix C Letter from Dr. Crippen to Ethel le Neve, 190 

Appendix D The Trial of Ethel le Neve at the Old Bailey, - - - - - 192 

Appendix E Court of Criminal Appeal Rex v. Hawley Harvey Crippen, - - 209 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 

The Right Hon. Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, - Frontispiece 

I fl 30 Hilldrop Crescent, ------ - facing page xvii 

Mrs. H. H. Crippen, 22 

Reproduction of Police Bill, , , 40 

H. H. Crippen and Miss le Neve in the Dock at Bow Street, ,, 94 

A. A. Tobin, K.C., 146 

R. D. Muir, 154 



THE TRIAL OF H. H. CRIPPEN. 

INTRODUCTION. 
I. 

MOST of the interest and part of the terror of great crime are due not to 
#hat is abnormal, but to what is normal in it ; what we have in common with 
the criminal, rather than that subtle insanity which differentiates him from 
us, is what makes us view with so lively an interest a fellow-being who has 
wandered into these tragic and fatal fields. A mean crime, like that of the 
brute who knocks an old woman on the head for the sake of the few shillings 
in her store, has a mean motive; a great crime, like that of the man who 
murders his wife and little children and commits suicide because he can 
see only starvation and misery before them, gathers desperately into itself 
in one wild protest against destiny what is left of nobility and greatness 
in the man's nature. It is not that his crime has any more legal justification 
than that of the murdering robber; it has not. On the contrary, it is 
more of an outrage upon life, and far more damaging in itsi results upon 
the community. Yet we do not hate or execrate the author; we profoundly 
pity him ; it is even possible sometimes to recognise a certain terrible beauty 
in the motive that made him thus make a complete sweep of his little 
world when it could no longer cope with the great world. There are, at 
the least, reasons for a great crime; for a mean one there are, at the most, 
excuses. The region of human morality is not a flat plain; there are hills 
and valleys in it, deep levels and high levels; there are also certain wild, 
isolated crags, terrible in their desolation, wrapped in storms and glooms, 
upon which, nevertheless, a slant of sunshine will sometimes fall, and reveal 
the wild flowers and jewelled mosses that hide in their awful clefts. 

Somewhere between these extremes, far below the highest, but far above 
the lowest, lies the case of Dr. Crippen, who killed his wife in order to 
give his life to the woman he loved. His was that rare thing in English 
annals, a crime passionel. True, the author of it was an American, and 
the victim a German-Russian-Polish-American, but the theatre and setting 
were those of the most commonplace and humdrum region of London life, 
and all the circumstances that contributed to its interest were such as are 
witnessed by thousands of people every day. The trial that followed it is in 
no sense remarkable from a legal point of view, except possibly with regard 
to the medical evidence; its chief interest lies in the story itself, in the 
characters of the people concerned, and in the dramatic flight and arrest at 
sea of Crippen and his mistress. 

xiii 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



11. 

In the year 1900 there came to London an entirely unremarkable little 
man, describing himself as an American doctor, to find some place in that 
large industry that lies on the borderland between genuine healing and the 
commercial exploitation of the modern human passion for swallowing 
medicine. This was Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen, a native of Coldwater, 
Michigan, where he had been born in the year 1862, his father being a dry 
goods merchant of that place. It was not his first visit to England; he 
had previously been here in the year 1883, when at the age of twenty-one 
he had come to pick up some medical training. His education had followed 
the ordinary course of studies for the medical profession in America. After 
receiving a general education at the California University, Michigan, he 
proceeded to the Hospital College of Cleveland, Ohio. After a little desul- 
tory attendance at various London hospitals in 1883, Dr. Crippen had 
returned to New York, where in 1885 he took a diploma as an ear and eye 
specialist at the Ophthalmic Hospital there. He afterwards practised at 
Detroit for two years, at Santiago for two years, at Salt Lake City, at 
New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Toronto. These movements covered 
twelve years, from 1885 to 1896. 

In 1887 he had married at Santiago his first wife, Charlotte Bell; the 
following year was born a eon, Otto Hawley Crippen, who at the time of the 
trial was living at Los Angeles. In the year 1890 or 1891 his wife died at 
Salt Lake City; and from there he returned to New York, where two years 
later he made the acquaintance of a girl of seventeen, whom he knew as Cora 
Turner. He fell in love with her, and although at the time he met her she 
was living as the mistress of another man, he married her and took her 
with him to St. Louis, where he had an appointment as consulting physician 
to an optician. He had found out that his wife's real name had not been 
Cora Turner at all, but Kunigunde Mackamotzki, and that her father was 
a Russian Pole and her mother a German. 

Mrs. Crippen was the possessor of a singing voice, small but of a 
clear quality, her friends' appreciation of which led her to entertain 
ambitions with regard to it which afterwards did not turn out to have 
been justified. Crippen, however, who was nothing if not an indulgent 
husband, allowed her to have it trained. This was in the year 1899, when 
they were living in Philadelphia; but Crippen allowed his wife to stay in 
New York for the purpose of having lessons, for which, of course, he paid, 
her ambition being that she should be trained for grand opera. She was 
still there when in 1900 Dr. Crippen came to London as manager for 
Munyon's advertising business in patent medicines, the offices of which 
were at that time in Shaftesbury Avenue. About four months later he was 



Introduction. 

joined by his wife, who had given up her lessons in New York and abandoned 
the idea of going into grand opera. Her ambitions now lay in the direction 
of the music hall stage, and she probably regarded England as a promising 
field for the development of her talents in that direction. 

This part of the story may be very briefly dismissed. Although she 
came over with a sketch of her own design, and many obliging music hall 
agents undertook to float her in this country, nothing ever came of it save 
profit to the agents. Her musical sketch turned out to be a thing of which 
the music and the words both remained yet to be written, and competent 
artists were hired by the obliging agents to fill these omissions. Mrs. 
Crippen, who was assiduous in fulfilling all the external conditions of her 
proposed career, took a stage name of " Belle Elmore," and provided herself 
with a quantity of dazzling dresses all, of course, at her good-natured 
husband's expense. But in fact the only attributes of the music hall artiste 
to which she ever attained were the stage name and the dresses. From 
star appearances in a first-rate London musio hall her ambitions dwindled 
down to appearances of any kind at any musio hall ; and even these, when 
it came to the point, proved beyond the powers of the agents to secure. 
One or two feeble appearances were made at very minor music halls; but 
Mrs. Crippen's talents were so inadequate, and the failure was so obvious, 
that even these attempts (for which, of course, Dr. Crippen had to pay) 
were abandoned. The truth was that Mrs. Crippen never had any talent 
whatever for the stage not even the very moderate kind that will suffice 
to make the performance of an attractive young woman with a voice, wearing 
pretty clothes, and with some financial backing, acceptable to a music hall 
audience. Poor Mrs. Crippen had to content herself with frequenting music 
hall circles, reading the Era, retaining her " stage " name of Belle Elmore, 
and adding to her already large stock of theatrical garments. Here was, 
indeed, a small tragedy. If the poor woman had had any kind of talent, 
and had really been the music hall favourite that she loved to imagine 
herself, both she and her husband would probably be living now, each 
happy in a different sphere; but apparently she had nothing but vanity, 
no scrap of the ability or industry necessary even for her small purposes. 
The humblest English music hall has its standards; and " Belle Elmore," 
in spite of her personal attractions and her pretty clothes, could not attain 
to them. 

III. 

People who met the Crippens at this time describe them as cultivating 
acquaintances among the Bohemian world of music hall performers who meet 
in small restaurants and are always ready to welcome to their social circle 
those who are lively company and have money to spend. Her friends 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



\ 



describe Belle Elmore at this period as being of an exceptional liveliness. 
A loud, clear voice with a strong New York twang would have called 
attention to her presence wherever she was; but her whole appearance 
corresponded with the vivacity of -,her character. She is described as good- 
looking, with large dark eyes, raven black hair, always elaborately dressed and 
in the brightest colours. Her appearance was likened by one enthusiaat 
to that of a " bird of paradise." Strange paradise, indeed, from which 
this poor painted bird had flown, or whither she was flying ! 

Crippen was then the insignificant-looking little man he always re- 
mained, small and short and slight in stature, with a sandy moustache, 
prominent eyes that looked at you through gold-rimmed spectacles, and a 
large domed forehead. His role in the social life was that of a spectator. 
He was the silent member of the gay little companies that were entertained 
by him and the bird of paradise. He was always courteous, always hospit- 
able; apparently contented to look on at and enjoy his wife's little social 
triumphs among her friends. Her clothes and her jewels were the recipients 
of a great deal of admiration, and Crippen, who paid for everything, was 
content to find his share of the enjoyment in the attention and applause 
which they excited. He often would give her money or a piece of jewellery 
in the presence of her friends; and was regarded, not surely without justifica- 
tion, as an ideal husband worthy of the good fortune that had befallen 
him in becoming the proprietor and companion of the bird of paradise. 

He was undoubtedly at this time still very fond of his wife, very 
kind to her, very patient with her extravagancies and the interminable 
calls which she made upon his time and his means. I do not mean that 
such things are sacrifices when they are given as Crippen gave them. His 
attitude to women was peculiar. He was not the type of man that likes 
to dominate women; he wasi of the type that loves to be dominated by 
them ; and in his love for showering presents upon his wife in public, and 
in spending a quite ridiculous proportion of his income in the adorning 
of her plump little person, he exhibited the symptoms of the psycopathic 
type to which undoubtedly he belonged. 



IV. 

It is not my intention to trace in detail the lives of these people 
further than is necessary to discover their characters. The relations which 
existed between them at the time of which I have been writing did not 
continue. The inordinate vanity of the wife demanded more than a 
husband's admiration, and Crippen's affection for her, which had never 
been of a very spiritual type, died the natural death of all such passions. 
It is distasteful to speak of Mrs. Crippen's relations with other men, but 



Introduction. 

it is obvious that the avenue to her affections was not very narrow or 
difficult of access. This also had its effect on the relations of husband 
and wife. After two years in England Crippen had to pay a short visit 
' to America, and when he came home he found that she had contracted a 
friendship with a Mr. Bruce Miller, whose evidence will be found in the 
course of the trial. Crippen ',s own written statement is that " she told 
me that this man visited her, had taken her about, and was very fond 
of her, also she was very fond of him. . . . It is quite four years 
since she ever went out to sing, and although we apparently lived happily 
together, as a matter of fact there were frequent occasions when she got 
into most violent tempers, and even threatened she would leave me, saying 
she had a man she could go to, and she would end it all." Is that a true 
or an untrue statement? As we cannot tell, we have to ask ourselves is 
it likely or unlikely? Even a very moderate experience of the world 
would, I imagine, be enough to convince a student of this case that it is 
probably a very accurate description of the state to which affairs had 
drifted after several years of the life which I have been trying to indicate. 

V. 

In the year 1905 the Crippens left the rooms in Store Street, Blooms- 
bury, where they had been living, and established themselves in 
39 Hilldrop Crescent a small semi-detached house in a quiet, leafy 
crescent off the Camden Road. There had been recently a rather un- 
pleasant trial in connection with the Drouet Institute, and Crippen had 
severed his connection with it, and returned to the management of 
Munyon's, where Ethel Le Neve was now engaged as book-keeper and 
secretary. 

The life at Hilldrop Crescent, externally commonplace, reveals on a 
closer examination some peculiar characteristica. From a friend of the 
Crippens who lived near them, knew them well, and saw them con- 
stantly, we are able to get some interesting sidelights on the life of the 
household. Mrs. Crippen'si florid taste was reflected, so far as their 
means permitted, in the furniture and decorations. Having seen a green 
wallpaper in the drawing-room of her friend's house, Mrs. Crippen ex- 
pressed herself shocked, and said, "Gee! you have got a hoo-doo here. 
Green paper! You'll have bad luck as sure as fate. When I have a 
house I won't have green in the house. It shall be pink right away 
through for luck." And apparently nearly all the rooms in Hilldrop 
Crescent were decorated in this propitious colour. 

I cannot do better than quote some notes of Mrs. Harrison's on the 
life at Hilldrop Crescent. It is possible that some of her views are 
B xvii 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

coloured by after events, but they are so interesting that they should be 
told in her own words. 

" Mrs. Crippen was strictly economical in small matters in con- 
nection with their private home living. In fact, to such an extent did 
she carry it that it suggested parsimony. She would search out the 
cheapest shops for meat, and go to the Caledonian Market and buy cheap 
fowls. She was always trying to save the pence, but scattering the 
pounds. It was a peculiar trait in her character. ., . . It was 
shortly after they took up their residence at Hilldrop Crescent (which was 
in the September of 1905) that the doctor was converted by his wife 
to Roman Catholicism. She, who had neglected her religion, so far 
as going to early Mass was concerned, started regularly attending the 
Roman Catholic church in Kentish Town. 

" One Sunday morning they both called early, after Mass, to invite 
us to a little supper party on the same evening, and it was then the 
doctor informed us that his 1 wife had made him a Catholic. He always 
appeared subservient to her wishes. I seemed to think at that time 
that she appeared more contented and settled down now she had a home 
to interest her and look after. He was delighted with the air up at 
Camden Road, and he chuckled with delight when he told us his clothes 
were becoming too small for him, and that he was getting quite fat. 
Within a few months he put on flesh, and appeared quite jolly and lively. 
They were about a great deal together, and their garden and the em- 
bellishment of their house seemed a source of great interest. He was 
a man with no apparent surface vices, or even the usual weaknesses or 
foibles of the ordinary man. Restraint was the one and only evidence 
of firmness in his character. He was unable to smoke; it made him ill. 
He refrained from the consumption of alcoholic liquor in the form of 
wines and spirits, as it affected his heart and digestion. He drank 
light ale and stout, and that only sparingly. He was not a man's man. 
No man had ever known him to join in a convivial bout; he was always 
back to time, and never came home with a meaningless grin on his face 
at two o'clock in the morning attended by pals from a neighbouring club. 
He never paid compliments to women, or flirted even in a jocular spirit. 
His eccentric taste in the matter of neckties and dress generally may be 
attributed to the fact that it represented feminine taste. His wife pur- 
chased his ties, and decided on the pattern of his clothing. She would 
discuss the colour of his trousers with the tailor, while he stood aside 
looking on, without venturing to give an opinion. The novelty of the 
new house employed her thoughts for a time. Her next little harmless 
whim took the form of desiring to receive paying guests for company. 
So she set to work to obtain some, and advertised in the Daily Telegraph. 
Several German young men, attracted by the newly furnished house and 
fascinating little hostess, engaged rooms. Four young men took up their 
residence with them. Still objecting to domestic servants, Mrs. Crippen 
undertook the domestic work, with the occasional assistance of a woman to 
do the cleaning. The doctor had to do his part. He had to rise 
at six o'clock in the morning to clean the boarders' boots, shovel up the 
coal, lay the breakfast, and help generally. He was always at his office 
before eight. It was a trying time, and quite unnecessary exertion for 



Introduction. 

both, as Crippen was earning -well, and gave his wife an ample supply of 
money ; in fact, she had the strings of the family purse, which will be 
revealed as this strange story unfolds itself. She annexed the extra 
money from the boarders for personal adornment, and he continued to pay 
the household bills. 

"A Mr. Richards, who was a member of their household for a time, 
wrote from Paris to the effect that during his sojourn under their roof he 
witnessed several domestic eruptions of rather a one-sided nature. Mrs. 
Crippen, excitable and irritable, chiding her husband; Crippen, pale, quiet, 
imperturbable. 

" Ethel Le Neve, the quiet, ladylike, unassuming typewriter, always 
to time, neat in appearance, methodical, obedient, was interesting the 
man who employed her. Quietly, imperceptibly she was creeping into 
his heart and dulling the affection for his wife. Crippen's home life, 
which could have been made happy with the means at their command, 
was not restful. Their Sunday was a strenuous day of unrest for a hard- 
working business man. Early morning Mass, boarders' breakfast to be 
prepared on their return, boots to clean, beds to make, crockery to wash, 
dinner for mid-day to be cooked and served, and all this to be done 
without domestic assistance. After dinner they played cards with their 
boarders, gave them tea at five o'clock and supper at nine. The novelty 
of the boarders' society, which entailed so much drudgery, soon wore off. 
Dr. Crippen hinted that he objected to it. They left shortly afterwards, 
and the Crippens returned to their strange solitary mode of living. There 
was no system in the household. Mrs. Crippen disliked fresh air and 
open windows. There was no regular house cleaning. It was done in 
spasms. The windows in all the rooms, including the basement, were 
rarely opened. They had two cats, which were never permitted to roam 
for fear they should fall victims to the shafts of illicit love. At his wife's 
desire Crippen built a cage in the garden for them to take the air. Only 
when they received, were lights shown in the hall or living rooms. They 
lived practically in the kitchen, which was generally in a state of dirt 
and disorder. The basement, owing to want of ventilation, smelt earthy 
and unpleasant. A strange ' creepy ' feeling always came over me when 
I descended it was so dark and dreary, although it was on a level with 
the back garden. 

" I followed her into the kitchen one morning when she was busy. 
It was a warm, humid day, and the grimy windows were all tightly 
closed. On the dresser was a heterogenous mass, consisting of dirty 
crockery, edibles, collars of the doctor's, false curls of her own, hairpins, 
brushes, letters, a gold jewelled purse, and other articles. It reminded 
one of the contents of Mrs. Jellyby's cupboard in Dickens' ' Bleak House,' 
when the cleaning operations were started for her daughter's wedding. 
The kitchener and gas stove were brown with rust and cooking stains. The 
table was littered with packages, saucepans, dirty knives, plates, flat- 
irons, a washing basin, and a coffee pot. Thrown carelessly across a chair 
was a lovely white chiffon gown embroidered with silk flowers and 
mounted over white glace. The little lady cat, who was a prisoner, was 
scratching wildly at a window in a vain attempt to attract the attention 
of a passing Don Juan. . . ." 

xiz 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



VI. 

It was at this period that Mrs. Crippen made the acquaintance of 
several well-known people in the music hall world, and became a member 
of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild a society doing quiet, charitable work 
among the more unfortunate members of the profession. Mrs. Crippen'a 
enthusiasm for the work of this Guild was perhaps the best thing one knows 
of her. It had the double attraction of appealing to the impulsive kind- 
ness of heart which is characteristic of people of her type, and also of 
bringing her into a more interesting kind of society than would otherwise 
have been open to her. Mrs. Martinetti, Mrs. Ginnett, Mrs. Eugene 
Stratton, Lil Hawthorne, and Mrs. Harrison were among those with whom 
she was thus brought into intimate association. And in this, so to speak, 
posthumous way she was able to appear herself as a member of the great 
profession, call herself " Belle Elmore," and appear to be enjoying 
the aftermath of those brilliant successes which, in fact, she had never 
enjoyed. She became honorary treasurer of the Guild, which she induced 
to rent one of the rooms of Dr. Crippen's suite in Albion House, New 
Oxford Street. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good; and the 
music hall strike gave her an opportunity during the famine of actually 
appearing on the stage, although even in these propitious circumstances 
fate was against her. She was engaged for a week at the Bedford and 
Euston Palace, but on her appearance at the Euston (after an agitated 
week turning over all her most expensive gowns) the audience refused 
to listen to her, evidently regarding her as a " blackleg," and she was 
hiased off the stage. The poor creature suffered great distress from this, 
and was only consoled by Crippen's sympathy and kindness. On this 
occasion there was an odd and sinister coincidence. An actor, named 
Weldon Atherstone, who appeared on the same evening, and had a similar 
reception, was able to sympathise with the weeping " Belle Elmore." 
Three years later, in July, 1910, in the same week in which London was 
ringing with the discovery of the remains at Hilldrop Crescent, Atherstone 
was found shot in the garden of his flat in Battersea. The coincidence 
was commented upon by Dr. Danford Thomas, the coroner, who a week 
later was himself dead. 

In all this time the Crippens were keeping up a considerable appear- 
ance, spending money on entertaining at restaurants and little parties, 
while in private they were living the somewhat squalid existence described 
by Mrs. Harrison. Also Crippen's affection for Le Neve was developing. 
For this quiet, reserved, attractive girl the quiet and reserved Crippen was 
nourishing a genuine passion. From the strain and storm of existence at 
home he was finding something like repose and true companionship in his 



Introduction. 

association with Miss Le Neve. His resources were further strained by 
his efforts to adorn her in the way he had adorned his wife-nao much so 
that the doctor connected with Munyon's establishment objected to her too 
smart appearance, and requested her to return to a more sober habit of 
dress. 

In short, the causes were now all assembled which were to produce 
such tragic results, and only some powerful agent was required to pre- 
cipitate the tragedy from these ingredients). There was the life at home, 
sordid and quarrelsome. There was the outward appearance of affluence 
and display, coupled with the laboriously kept-up appearance of matrimonial 
felicity. There were the business interests and anxieties, and there was 
the secret growing passion for Miss Le Neve. 



VII. 

Here, then, was Crippen living, although not on affectionate, at any 
rate on endurable terms with his wife. That the relationship would, and 
indeed must somehow at some time come to an end, was probably in both 
their minds. They had no children to complicate the relationship, and 
Mrs. Crippen's former manner of life and her popularity with a certain class 
of man must have familiarised her with ways in which she could be easily 
independent of her husband. But that the situation in January had become 
so intolerable that either thought of murdering the other I do not believe. 
Murder is, to say the least of it, an extreme step to take, even in marital 
disagreements ; it is an extreme stage to which to carry them it is an extreme 
method of solving them. There are thousands of men and women who 
daily carry the burden that Crippen was carrying, who wake up every morn- 
ing to another day of a relationship of which bickering and distaste are 
the elements ; who see stretching hopelessly before them a long and dreary 
vista of such days. But they do not resort to murder as an escape. Except 
to a maniac, or to a person beside himself with rage, jealousy, hatred, fear, 
or despair, the deliberate killing of a human companion is a difficult, 
disagreeable, and indeed abhorrent business. It is also highly dangerous, 
and (thanks to the law and to the machinery of justice) is almost certain 
to bring the offender into a situation in comparison with which the un- 
happiest married life would seem as charming as the memory of Eden must 
have been to our fallen parents. In such circumstances, tolerated for 
so long, and therefore tolerable for a little longer, something very acute, 
sudden, or final, must occur to precipitate such an action. And something 
of the same character must have occurred in the Crippen household to make 
the doctor decide that he must not only escape from his wife but murder 
her. What was it? 

xxi 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

There are four theories, and only four, which can serve even approxi- 
mately as a solution of the problem. Let us examine them. 



VIII. 

The first theory, which may be called the official theory of the prosecu- 
tion, is that Crippen murdered his wife simply that he might indulge 
his guilty passion for Ethel Le Neve. This is the kind of 
motive which is always good enough for a jury, especially when 
the facts of the murder are proved; but it will not stand 
intelligent examination. It is not reasonably in accordance either 
with the facts or with the characters of the people concerned. As 
for the guilty passion, Crippen had not only enjoyed it for a considerable 
time, but he obviously did not feel particularly guilty about it; it is even ob- 
vious that he took no more trouble to hide it than the dictates of elementary 
discretion and common sense demanded. It is pretty certain that all his 
friends and the people connected with him in business knew all about it, 
and had become so accustomed to it as to take it for granted. Ethel Le 
Neve was the companion of his business life and of his days ; his wife was 
not even the companion of his nights; and much as he no doubt wished 
that he was married to Ethel Le Neve and not to Cora Crippen, that in itself 
could not have been a sufficient motive for him to commit murder. It was 
always possible for him simply to leave or desert his wife, and live openly 
with Le Neve. But if he had been going to do that, he would have done 
it before. When a man is in love with a woman who is not his wife, the 
time at which he is most likely to desert the wife for the mistress is at the 
beginning of the new relationship ; not when it has been going on for years 
and become, as it were, regularised. And if that is true of mere desertion, 
how much more true is it of murder, which requires so much stronger a 
motive, so much more impulsive a passion. If this theory as to motive 
were sound, Crippen would surely have committed the crime several years 
earlier, and not after he had settled down into a routine of existence which 
was, as I have suggested, if not happy, at any rate full of varied interests 
and had its private alleviations. 

IX. 

Another and most ingenious attempt to account for the sudden abolition 
of Mrs. Crippen is, I think, the invention of Sir Edward Marshall Hall, 
who developed it at some length in a discussion before a private society in 
London. This was the theory upon which, if he had defended Crippen, his 
defence would have been founded ; and it was because another line of defence 



Introduction. 

had been opened at the Police Court before the brief was offered to him that 
he ultimately declined it. 

The theory is that, far from Crippen having ceased to cohabit with his 
wife, he was in fact something of a victim to her exigencies in that respect ; 
that Mrs. Crippen had an abnormal amative appetite abnormal, that is to 
say, not in the nature but in the extent of the appetite ; that her husband, 
devoted as he was to his mistress, found himself the victim of a double 
demand to which the poor little man's frail physique and advancing years 
rendered him unequal; and that he sought in the pharmacopoeia a remedy 
for this distressing state of affairs. That having known, from his former 
experience in lunatic asylums, that hyoscin is sometimes used as a sexual 
depressant in cases of acute nymph omania, he conceived the idea of adminis- 
tering a few doses of this drug in order to keep his wife quiet. That 
although he knew the drug was used he did not know what the dose was, 
and innocently went out and bought 5 grains, the whole of which he 
administered to his wife in a cup of coffee. And that when, instead of 
falling quietly asleep, Mrs. Crippen, to the horror and surprise of her hus- 
band, incontinently died, he was so frightened at what he had done and 
foresaw such difficulty in explaining it that he cut up, burned, and otherwise 
disposed of the remains, and gave his friends the explanation of Mrs. 
Crippen's disappearance which in fact he did give. That, in short, if when 
she died he had run out and told a policeman of his dreadful mistake, he 
would have been an object of sympathy rather than of legal vengeance. 

The ingenuity of this theory cannot be denied; and there is a touch 
of true comedy in it, in spite of the grim facts, which makes one regret 
that it had not the chance of being fully developed in a criminal Court. 
Sir Edward Marshall Hall is not only convinced that he could have satisfied 
the jury and got the charge reduced to one of manslaughter, but (a much more 
extreme belief) he even thinks this to be the true explanation of the facts. 
But I am afraid that it will not do either. There is the fact that, having 
occupied a common room and bed in their former homes, the Crippens had 
separate rooms at Hilldrop Crescent. It is all very well to represent Crippen 
as the victim of the inordinate concupiscence of his wife as well as of his own 
passion for his mistress; but these are two fires between which a man 
In his situation cannot really be forced to remain. Although Courts of 
law continue to make orders for the restitution of conjugal rights, no method 
of enforcing them has so far been discovered ; and relief from such a situation 
as this theory of the case presumes could be found in a purely negative line 
of conduct. Moreover (and here is the greatest weakness of this theory) it 
is almost unthinkable that a medical man who knew the properties of hydro- 
bromide of hyoscin could be totally ignorant of the amount of the dose. 
It is quite possible that he would not know the minute variations of the 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

dose for different cases; but that he should make such a wild mistake as 
lies in the difference between half a grain and 5 grains is unthinkable. 
That Crippen administered 5 grains is to be inferred not only from the 
amount discovered in the remains, but also from the fact that no residue 
of the drug was discovered in his possession; and it would have been of 
vital importance to Jiim to produce such residue, in view of his own explana- 
tion as to his reason for purchasing hyoscin. So that this theory, ingenious 
as it is and profoundly interesting as its development would have been as a 
legal defence, must in my view be dismissed, not so much because it is 
unreasonable as because it is discordant with the revealed facts of the case. 



X. 

There is a third theory to which, after full consideration of all the 
mysterious elements in the problem, I am driven as the most reasonable 
explanation of this extreme and violent act on the part of a man whose 
characteristics, as revealed to his associates through a number of years, 
were patience, kindness, and amiability. It is that the more or less sudden 
act which precipitated the tragedy came from Mrs. Crippen herself, in the 
form of a definite decision to leave her husband and take with her the whole 
available capital of the family, including the money in the bank and the 
jewellery. 

In regard to this there is a very important fact which did not and 
could not come out at the trial, but goes far to explain what is otherwise 
almost inexplicable. It is known that Mrs. Crippen had more than 
once in the month of January told one of her friends that if Crippen did not 
give up his association with Miss Le Neve she intended to leave him, and 
to take her money with her. It will be observed that she spoke of it as 
"her" money, and it is clear that she so regarded it. What view 
Crippen himself took of this scheme I do not know, but it is at least 
strange that the bulk of their money was held in a joint account. It is 
not in accordance with the orderly and business-like character of Crippen 
that he should have placed all his own resources 1 , on which he depended 
not only for his household expenses, but also for the conduct of the various 
little businesses in which he from time to time engaged, at the mercy of a 
woman like hie wife. He knew her character perfectly well no one 
better; he must have known that, whatever qualities she possessed, she 
was not the sort of woman in whose hands it would be desirable to place the 
control of one's finances 1 . In regard to the 600 on deposit in the 
Charing Cross Bank, some of this had been deposited in the joint names 
of husband and wife, and some in the name of Belle Elmore. Now, Mrs. 
Crippen had no means of getting money unless it was given to her by her 
xxiv 



Introduction. 

husband or some one else. She never earned any money during the 
five years which are the crucial period in this case. Crippen was, even 
on the admission of her own friends, liberal to her when he had money, 
and gave her whatever she required in accordance with his means. But 
the kind of salaries that Crippen earned did not entirely account for the 
sums of money that were from time to time in the possession of these two 
people, jointly or severally. It is true that in some of his businesses, 
although on a small salary (3 or 4 a week), he was entitled to com- 
mission; but latterly, at any rate, that commission could not have 
amounted to anything considerable. In 1905, when he was manager of 
the Sovereign Remedy Company, it failed. From there he went as 
physician to the Drouet Company, and it failed ; next he went to the 
Aural Clinio Company, and in six months: it also failed. Then he re- 
turned to Munyon'e as manager, and after some two years took it over 
as an agency which seems to mean that the proprietors did not consider 
the branch sufficiently profitable to justify his salary, and allowed him 
to run it on an agent's commission. In November, 1909, he had ceased 
to be manager of the agency, and was simply remaining on commission; 
and even this arrangement was to terminate on the 31st of January, 1910. 
Undoubtedly he had various eide lines of activity in the patent medicine 
business, but they were only side lines ; and probably at the time of the 
murder his chief source of income was the partnership in a dental business 
which he had with Dr. Rylance at Albion House, New Oxford Street. But 
in all these affairs, having regard to the fact that he had a house to keep 
up and a wife to support who, for her station in life, was notoriously 
extravagant, there does not seem much room for the laying by of money and 
the purchase of expensive jewellery. Where, then, did the money come 
from? And how far was Mrs. Crippen justified in her claim to it as her 
own property? 

We must remember what she had been and what she was. Un- 
doubtedly she occasionally received "presents" from various men; and 
whether these took the form of money or jewellery, or both, one can under- 
stand that she would regard them as entirely her own property and at her 
own disposal. What Crippen knew of their origin I cannot tell. The 
veil of mystery which surrounds so much of the character of this quiet 
and reserved man is not lifted to show any light on this aspect of the case. 
He was indifferent to his wife, who, by her vanity, her extravagance, her 
shrewishness, had long worn out the affection in which he had formerly 
held her and his pride in the kind of attention that she attracted. Crippen 
was not a robust man physically ; his vitality was of a nervous sort. She, 
on the other hand, was robust and animal. Her vitality was of that 
loud, aggressive, and physical kind that seems to exhaust the atmosphere 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

round it, and is undoubtedly exhausting to live with. In all probability, 
therefore, he did not ultimately care what she did, where she went, or 
whom she saw, as long as his life was allowed to go on without interruption. 
Of course, there were quarrels; " Belle Elmore," who could be so pleasant 
and attractive to her music hall friends, was not the sort of woman to 
withhold her words on provocation, or to take a philosophic view of her 
husband's liaison. It is true that she had ceased to care for him, and 
spared him neither in public nor in private before her friends; but in the 
mean of soul, vanity takes the place of nobler passions, and though she 
did not want Crippen for herself, it was not in accordance with her 
vanity that he should enjoy the love of any other woman. She was 
probably getting bored with the Hilldrop Crescent existence; unless there 
was plenty of money to gild it, that was too dingy a life for the kind of 
woman she conceived herself to be. Also she had reached that age 
thirty-five years 1 when a woman of her race begins to realise that her 
youth is over, and that the time in which her attractions can still pass 
current in the world of men is growing short. She had any amount of 
clothes, plenty of jewellery, some money. Why not pick a quarrel with 
Crippen, and in the disguise of a virtuous and ill-used wife fly to the 
protection of some man who was 1 , or whom she believed to be, ready to 
receive her? 

I believe that somewhere about the middle of January, 1910, she 
made this threat to Crippen, and perhaps began to look about her for the 
means to carry it out. I believe that he was worried, both on account 
of money and his business affairs, and possibly also through his love for 
Ethel Le Neve. It is possible that she, as well as Mrs. Crippen, was discon- 
tented with the existing situation ; it would be remarkable if she were not. 
Although she had given herself entirely to Crippen, and knew herself to 
be the object of his very real devotion, she was still working as an ordinary 
typist at Munyon's; and the contrast between her situation and that of 
the woman who had the official position of Crippen's wife and the spending 
of the money, the wearing of the clothes and jewellery, and the treasurer- 
ship of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild, and all the rest of it, must have 
been increasingly disagreeable. There is no evidence that she put any 
pressure of this nature on Crippen; it would not be fair to suggest that 
she did. But perhaps all the more for that reason would Crippen desire 
to give to the woman he loved what was at present being wasted on the 
woman he did not love. If his wife were to go away as she threatened, 
and take all her possessions with her, the situation would be worse instead 
of better. There would be a scandal in their little world ; there would be 
no money just at the time when it was most needed; there would be none 
of the jewellery which Crippen longed to see adorning the person of his 



Introduction. 

mistress. Remember Crippen's attitude to jewellery. Undoubtedly 
he had bought, and his wife possessed, jewellery of a value quite unusual 
for people in their circumstances; and there is no doubt that at the time 
when he was in love with his wife he found, as other men have found, 
an actual stimulus to his passion in seeing her hung about with precious 
and dazzling things. He greatly desired, now that his passion was 
centred on Ethel Le Neve, to give it some indulgence in the same way. 
If Mrs. Crippen went away and took everything with her there was an 
end to these hopes. But what if she were to die? 



XL 

Here came the turning point in Crippen's life, when, from being a 
much-tried and much-enduring man, encoiled by circumstances and the 
consequences of his own actions, he became a criminal. It is a deep and 
unfathomable chasm that divides the two conditions, but it may be a 
very narrow one. Upon what plank he crossed or what exasperating word 
or deed goaded him to make the leap, I do not know or expect ever to 
learn. But from that moment he never wavered. He went and bought 
the hyoscin always considerate, you see, even in the weapon he used to 
kill his wife. He had decided that it would be better that she should 
cease to exist; and his ingenuity and consideration combined hit upon 
what was at once the most merciful and the safest poison he could have 
used. 

From the 19th of January, when the hyoscin came into his possession, 
he was probably considering the means and opportunity of using it. It 
is impossible to say whether its employment on the night of the 31st of 
January, when the Martinettis dined with them, was accidental or pre- 
meditated. It may have been in his mind to do it after an apparently 
amicable evening in the presence of friends, when he and his wife could 
be seen in an atmosphere of matrimonial amity. If so, that scheme was 
rather frustrated by the fact that Mrs. Crippen rated him soundly in the 
presence of the Martinettis for allowing Mr. Martinetti to go upstairs to 
the lavatory by himself, instead of escorted by his host. The matters 
into which one descends here are minute indeed, but who can say what 
bearing they may not have had on the destinies of those present? Mrs. 
Crippen may have been anxious to have a word alone with Mrs. Martinetti, 
and have been enraged with Crippen for not giving her the opportunity. 
Otherwise, seeing that Mr. Martinetti knew the house well, and that they 
were in the habit of dining there at least once a week, Mrs. Crippen's 
annoyance with her husband seems to have been excessive. However, it 
may have been enough ; it may have been the spark that fired the train, 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

and what is certain is that Mrs. Crippen was never seen alive after 
that evening, and that her remains, containing trace of what had been a 
large dose of hydrobromide of hyoscin, were subsequently discovered 
beneath the floor of the coal cellar below the steps. 

The only other theory with which the facts may be brought into 
accordance is one which would involve the collusion of an accomplice, and 
for obvious reasons cannot be discussed. 



XII. 

But taking the third theory as the one which is the most reasonable of 
those that are open to us 1 , Crippen's subsequent conduct is all of a piece, 
and throws a profoundly interesting light on his character. Across the 
chasm which separates the ordinary citizen from the criminal, he had 
taken the fatal and decisive step; but having done so, instead of going 
off, like so many murderers, to wander in the wilderness as an outlaw, he 
resumed his ordinary course of life; he kept straight on; only now he 
walked on the far side of the narrow abyss. If the course of his life were 
to be marked on a chart one would not see it, as is usual in the case of 
criminals, turning suddenly at a right angle and continuing in that 
direction; it would appear as a straight course with one little step aside 
in the middle of it, and then continuing as before. It is certain that 
he showed no disturbance, remorse or fright for the horrid deed that he 
had committed ; and I believe that he did not feel any. In some obscure 
way he justified to himself what he had done without violating his 
conscience, because, as far as one can judge, his life was. now happier than 
it had been before. But on the assumption that he committed this crime 
out of love for his mistress, hisi subsequent conduct was perfectly con- 
sistent. He took all the necessary steps, and took them with great skill 
and coolness, to conceal all traces of the crime. The bones, limbs, and 
head, as well as certain characteristic organs, had all been removed from 
the discovered remains, and the evidence was that they had been removed 
by a hand skilled in dissection. No one knows how they were disposed of; 
but it must have been a work of days. One theory is that it was done in 
the bath, and the bones and limbs burned in the kitchen grate, while 
the head was got rid of during Crippen's subsequent trip to Dieppe 
dropped overboard in a handbag. But whatever the method, it must have 
involved labours physically exhausting, and of a nature horrible to 
contemplate. 

He invented a story to account for his wife's disappearance. 
With a certain completeness of artistic circumstances he developed 
her disappearance into her death in far-away California; and 



Introduction. 

he devoted himself to the girl for whose affections he was 
to pay such a price. It is characteristic of the inconsistency of 
human prejudice that half the indignation and horror aroused against him 
was because of the fact that he cut up- his wife's remains, and that he 
wrote hypocritical letters to the music hall ladies about her death in 
California. How absurd is such an attitude. The crime was in murdering 
his wife ; it was a crime of such magnitude that nothing he could do after- 
wards could possibly aggravate it, unless it had involved cruelty or 
betrayal of some one who was alive. On the contrary, granting the crime 
and granting its enormity, what he did afterwards was technically admir- 
able. It was his business to abolish all trace of it, and that he very nearly 
succeeded in doing. If he were going to tell a lie about his wife's death 
in California, he had better do it well than badly; and, in fact, he did 
it extremely well. If he had murdered his wife in order to be happy with 
Le Neve, the least he could do was to devote himself to her; and from 
that moment until the morning he was hanged in Pentonville Prison he 
had no other thought but of her welfare, no other object but to secure 
her safety and happiness, no other fear but that any consequence of his 
action should recoil upon her. 



xm. 

But human vanity, which is woven like a gaudy thread through the dark 
fabric of this story, was to prove his undoing. His wife gone, her disappear- 
ance explained and her death announced, with circumstantial details, in- 
cluding memorial cards and announcements in the Era matters which 
occupied a couple of months Crippen took Miss Le Neve more or less openly 
to live with him in Hilldrop Crescent (12th March). My theory as to the 
crime is supported by the fact that on 2nd and 9th February Crippen pawned 
jewellery to the value of 195. He had now command of money; Miss Le 
Neve was living with him, and he could begin to enjoy the fruits of his 
dreadful action. They became bolder and more open in the enjoyment of 
the situation. She was seen at a charity dinner and dance on 20th 
February, wearing some of the jewellery which had been Mrs. Crippen'e. 
This seems to have been too much for some of the lady friends of Mrs. 
Crippen. Perhaps some of them felt that had she made a will she would 
have divided her treasured possessions among them. They knew that the 
last person whom she would have wished to enjoy them was Miss Le Neve. 
They talked, they wondered, they became suspicious; and on 30th June 
Mr. Nash went to Scotland Yard and raised the whole question of Mrs. 
Crippen's disappearance. 

A week later Inspector Dew and Sergeant Mitchell began their inquiries, 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



visiting Crippen at his office. He then told them that the whole story of 

(Mrs. Crippen's death was untrue, that she had left him, he knew not with 
whom, and that to avoid scandal he had invented the story of her journey 
to California, her illness, and death. He gave a signed statement which 
will be found in its place in the evidence, 1 and showed every desire to give 
them what assistance he could in discovering the whereabouts of his wife. 
This statement was given to Inspector Dew in Crippen's office, in the 
intervals between medical consultations and tooth-pulling ; he would dictate 
a little of it, go out and extract a tooth, and return and dictate some 
more. It occupied the greater part of the day, and Crippen and Inspector 
Dew went out and had lunch together at the Holborn Restaurant in the 
middle of it. Crippen took the officers to Hilldrop Crescent, assisting them 
to examine everything. They went all over the house from attic to cellar, 
and found nothing whatever inconsistent with his story. Inspector Dew 
has told me that on this day, 8th July, having been almost continually 
with Crippen and having gone over the whole house, he had found nothing 
whatever to lead him to suppose that there was anything in the case other 
than what Crippen had told him. The investigation was to all intents and 
purposes finished. 
I 

XIV. 

And then something broke down. It was not the nerve of Crippen ; but 
it was not improbably the nerve of Miss Le Neve. It is impossible to be 
sure whether or not she knew the truth ; it is quite possible, as both she and 
Crippen swore, that she did not. If she did, there would be little wonder 
that the situation had become too much for her. But even if she did not, 
she may have become uneasy and suspicious, and Crippen may have felt, 
now that there was an investigation afoot, that in some way her nerve 
would give way and her manner awake suspicion, and that the strain of 
further examination would prove altogether too much for her. He resolved 
on instant flight. Some very powerful influence must have been at work 
to induce Miss Le Neve to submit to the daring scheme of sudden flight 
disguised as a boy. If they had only known it, the worst was over; the 
probability is that if they had not gone away the matter would have been 
dropped, and Mrs. Crippen's disappearance ranked among the many 
unsolved mysteries of London life. But they did not know it ; and Crippen 
with masterly coolness arranged the details of the flight. He left his 
affairs in order; found time, even in this hurried hour of preparation, to 
write letters characterised by his usual courtesy which would enable his 
business associates to suffer the least possible embarrassment through his 

1 See p. 34. 



Introduction. 

departure. Unsuspected and uninterrupted, they got away to Rotterdam 
and to Antwerp, where in the names of Mr. and Master Robinson they 
took passage for Quebec on the s.s. " Montrose," sailing on 20th July. 



XV. 

But in the meantime something had happened in London which 
renewed in a powerful and fatal form the almost extinct current of official 
suspicion. Inspector Dew, for no particular reason, decided to return on 
Monday, llth July, to Albion House, Crippen' s office, to ask some supple- 
mentary questions. There he heard that Crippen had gone away. His 
suspicions now thoroughly awakened, he returned to Hilldrop Crescent, 
and made a further search of the house, taking up portions of the garden, 
examining the coal cellar, testing the bricks with his foot; but found 
nothing. With a fortunate pertinacity which won him his distinction in 
this case, he returned to the search on the next day, and again on the 
following day, the 13th, when, probing the bricks of the cellar floor with 
a poker, he discovered that one of them could be raised. Having got a 
few more out by the same process, he got a spade and began to dig, and 
a few inches down came upon a compact mass of animal remains which, 
on expert investigation, proved to be the greater part of the contents of 
a human body from which the head, limbs, and bones were missing, as 
were also those particular organs which would have determined the sex of 
the body. On the 16th July a warrant was issued for the arrest of Crippen 
and Miss Le Neve, but, as has been seen, they had successfully escaped, 
and were then, and during the four following days, waiting for the " Mon- 
trose " to sail from Antwerp. 

The tragic chapters of the story succeeded one another with dramatic 
rapidity. There had been time for the sensational discovery at Hilldrop 
Crescent to be circularised, and the description of the two fugitives 
reached Antwerp before the ship sailed. The captain had read them, 
and he had not been at sea two days before he thought he had identified 
in Mr. and Master Robinson the two people who were wanted by the police, 
and for information as to whom the Daily Mail had offered a reward of 
100. Wireless telegraphy, then in its early commercial stages, was used 
for the first time in the science of criminal detection. Captain Kendall 
sent on the 22nd a long wireless message (which will be found as an 
appendix) relating his discovery, and for nine days he kept his victims 
all unsuspicious of the dreadful part in their lives which the crackling 
discharge of the wireless played, coaxing them to talk and laugh, and luring 
them on to the exposure of their not very successful disguise. On the 23rd 
July Dew and Mitchell sailed from Liverpool, and on the 31st Crippen 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

and Miss Le Neve were arrested when the ship was off Father Point, Dew 
coming on board disguised as a pilot; and, after extradition proceeding 
at Quebec, were brought back to London for trial. 



XVI. 

The way in which, by the accidental inclusion of part of a pyjama 
jacket among the remains, the date at which they were buried otherwise 
unascertainable was absolutely fixed within certain limits; the brilliant 
and laborious analysis which proved that these few pieces of flesh 
and skin had been part of a body which had contained a fatal dose of 
hyoscin; the extraordinary contradiction and breakdown of the experts 
engaged for the defence these may all be discovered in the report of the 
trial. Mr. Muir (now Sir Richard) was never in all his long career as a 
criminal prosecutor more formidable and unflinching than in his masterly 
weaving together of the web which bound Crippen to his ultimate fate. 
But the most amazing feature of the trial was the absolute coolness and 
imperturbability of Crippen in the long and terrible cross-examination 
which will be read in its place. The hideous moment in which the pieces of 
his dead wife's skin were handed round in a soup plate for inspection left 
him, alone of all the people in that crowded Court, quite unmoved. He 
peered at them with an intelligent curiosity as though they had been mere 
museum specimens. Not by one word or tremor did this frail little man 
betray any sign of his terrible position, to which, nevertheless, as we know 
from other evidence, he was acutely and tragically sensitive. This be- 
haviour characterised him up to his very last moments of life. And just 
as the Crown, with all its resources, had not been able to produce a single 
person who could say otherwise than that in every relationship of life 
Crippen had always behaved with kindness, consideration, and unselfish- 
ness, so every one who came in contact with him from his trial to his 
death and some of them were fairly hardened prison officials! looked upon 
him not only with respect, but with something like affection. 

He never gave any trouble, showed any concern or asked for any benefit 
for himself; all his concern and all his requests were for the woman he 
loved. I have seen the tragic little book in which it was the duty of the 
warders who sat and watched with him day and night in the condemned 
cell to record his conduct from hour to hour, and although I do not feel 
myself free to quote from it, there is nothing in that record that shows 
any preoccupation whatever except anxiety on behalf of another. The 
only time he broke down was when, late on the night before his execution, 
the Governor of Pentonville prison brought him a telegram of farewell 
from Miss Le Neve, and his one request, when the Governor at this same 
xxxii 



Introduction. 

midnight interview asked him if there was anything lie could possibly do 
for him, was that the one or two letters that he had received from her, 
and her photograph, should be buried in the prison grave with him on the 
morrow. This promise was given and kept. 



XVII. 

No one will pretend to read in these pages any apology or justification 
for a proved murder. They are an attempt to trace the threads of motive 
throughout what is a very remarkable instance of good and bad influences 
acting on human conduct. Rightly read and understood this is an admon- 
ishing, sobering and instructive story. We may consider Crippen a hateful 
man ; but nobody who came in contact with him was able to say so. 
From those who, whether in business relations or as friends of his wife, 
had no reason to like or praise him, to the officials of the prison in which 
he was executed as a condemned murderer, there is but one chorus of 
testimony to his character as tested by daily intercourse with his fellow- 
men; even in regard to the very circumstances surrounding his crime, or 
at any rate following it, there is the same extraordinary feature ; the very 
crime itself brought out in him high human qualities. 

There are two sides to the story the physical, which is sordid, 
dreadful, and revolting, and the spiritual, which is good and heroic; to 
the extent that most honest men, finding themselves in the situation in 
which he ultimately found himself, for whatever reason, and tried by the 
tests by which he was tried, would be glad to come out of them half so 
well. Such a story can only be understood by the aid of the imagination ; 
and it should remind us, in the judgments that we pass on our fellow-men, 
never to forget the dual nature of human character and the mystery in 
virtue of which acts of great moral obliquity may march with conduct 
above the ordinary standards conduct which, if we wish to be just, as we 
hope for justice to ourselves, should be remembered and recorded no less 
than the crime. 



xxxin 



Leading Dates in the Crippen Case. 



1910. 
January 1 Crippen orders 5 grains of hyoscin from Messrs. Lewis & Burrows. 

19 He gets the hyoscin. 

31 Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti dine with the Crippens at 30 Hilldrop 

Crescent. 

February 1 Dr. Crippen calls to enquire for Mr. Martinetti. 
2 Crippen pawns ring and earrings for 80. 
2 Letter received by the Music Hall Ladies' Guild, containing Mrs. 

Crippen's resignation. 
9 Crippen pawns brooch and rings for 115. 

20 Crippen and Le Neve attend the dinner and ball of the Benevolent 

Fund. 
March 12 Miss Le Neve gives up her situation and goes to live with Crippen at 

39 Hilldrop Crescent. 

16 Crippen gives his landlord 3 months' notice as to the tenancy of 
39 Hilldrop Crescent. 

23 Crippen and Le Neve go to Dieppe for Easter. 

24 Telegram to Mrs. Martinetti from Crippen announcing his wife's 

death. 

26 Obituary notice of Mrs. Crippen in The Era. 
June 18 Crippen arranged with his landlord to stay on at Hilldrop Crescent 

until 29th of September. 
28 Mr. Nash questions Crippen about his wife's remains. 

30 Mr. Nash goes to Scotland Yard. 

July 8 Inspector Dew and Sergeant Mitchell visit Crippen at Albion House, 

and accompany him to Hilldrop Crescent 

9 Crippen and Miss Le Neve leave London. Dew at Hilldrop Crescent. 
9 Description of Mrs. Crippen circulated. 

11 Description of Crippen and Miss Le Neve circulated by Police. 

12 Search at Hilldrop Crescent continued. 

13 Human remains discovered beneath the cellar at Hilldrop'Crescent. 
16 Warrant issued for the arrest of Crippen and Miss Le Neve. 

20 S.S. " Montrose " sails from Antwerp, with Crippen and Miss Le Neve 
travelling disguised as father and son. 

22 Wireless message received from Captain Kendall of the " Montrose." 

23 Inspector Dew and Sergeant Mitchell sail from Liverpool in 

S.S. "Laurentic." 

31 Arrest of Crippen and Miss Le Neve at sea off Father Point. 
August 8 Extradition proceedings at Quebec. 

20 Crippen and Miss Le Neve sail for England in custody. 

28 Arrival at Liverpool. 

29 Police Court proceedings opened at Bow Street. 
September 2 Crippen and Miss Le Neve committed for trial. 

26 Coroner's jury returns a verdict of wilful murder against Crippen. 
October 10 Cora Crippen's remains buried at Finchley Cemetery. 
18 Trial of Crippen opened at Old Bailey. . ... . f 
W- Crippen found guilty and sentenced to death. 

5 Crippen's appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal heard and dismissed. 
23 Crippen executed at Pentonville. 



Notemt>%r 



THE TRIAL 

WITHIN THE 

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, 
OLD BAILEY, LONDON, 

TUESDAY, 18th OCTOBER, 1910. 



Judge 

THE RIGHT HON. LORD ALVERSTONE, Lord Chief Justice of 
England. 

Counsel for the Grown 

Mr. R. D. Mum, 

Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS, and 

Mr. INGLEBY ODDIE. 

(Instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.) 

Counsel for the Prisoner 

Mr. TOBIN, K.C., 

Mr. HUNTLY JENKINS, and 

Mr. ROOME. 

(Instructed by Messrs. Arthur Newton & Co.) 



THE TRIAL. 

First Day Tuesday, 18th October, 1910. 

The CLERK OP THE COURT Hawley Harvey Crippen, you are indicted 
and also charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of 
Cora Crippen on the 1st February last. Are you guilty or not guilty? 

The PRISONER Not guilty, my lord. 

Opening Statement for the Crown. 

Mr. MUIR, in opening the case for the Crown, began by tracing the 
earlier personal history of the prisoner and of his wife, whom he married 
as his second wife in 1892 or 1893, and also the circumstances of their 
married life at Hilldrop Crescent, down to the end of last year. So far 
as their friends were concerned, the relations between husband and wife 
seemed to be of the best possible kind; they lived together apparently on 
affectionate terms. The prisoner had not for some four years, however, 
according to his own statement, cohabited with his wife, but had during 
three years of that period been carrying on an intrigue with a young 
woman, Ethel Le Neve, who had been in his service as a typist, and for 
three years he had been having immoral relations with her of a clandestine 
kind, never staying away from home at night, but meeting her in hotels 
in the daytime. That being so, the position was a strange one. The 
prisoner said he provided all the money for the home in which he and his 
wife were living. If that was so, he was keeping up an establishment for 
a woman towards whom, according to himself, he had no affection at all. 
As regards pecuniary circumstances, the prisoner and his wife during 
some years of their married life were putting by money. Between 
March, 1905, and March, 1909, they had deposited with the Charing 
Crossi Bank various sums, amounting in all to 600. These were de- 
posited, some in the joint names of husband and wife, and some in the 
name of the wife alone by which she was generally known Belle Elmore. 
In the beginning of the present year the financial position was not so 
good. Up to November the prisoner had been in receipt of a weekly 
salary of 3 from the business known as Munyon's Remedies, but that 
salary ceased, and he became their agent in this country on commission. 
On 31st January of the present year his relations with Munyon's Remedies 
ceased altogether a remarkable coincidence of date, because 31st January 
was the critical date in this case. The prisoner had some other businesses, 
but it was doubtful whether any of them was a source of revenue to him 
at all. It was quite certain that at the date referred to the prisoner was 
pressed for money. The position, therefore, was this his affection 

3 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Mulr 



fixed upon Ethel Le Neve, and himself desirous of establishing closer 
relations "with that young woman; the physical presence of his "wife an 
obstacle to those relations; the fact that he had no money another 
obstacle. If Belle Elmore died both those obstacles would be removed, 
because Belle Elmore's money, and property which could be converted into 
money, would enable him to keep Ethel Le Neve, which at that time he 
was unable to do. 

That was the state of things on 31st January. On that day the 
prisoner desired that Mr. Paul Martinetti and his wife should spend the 
evening with him and his wife. He pressed the invitation, and it was 
accepted. Mrs. Crippen was in the best of health and spirits. 
So there were Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti witnesses, if ever they 
should be required, to the fact that on the early morning of 1st February 
Mr. and Mrs. Crippen were on their usual affectionate terms, and if. Mrs. 
Crippen should from that moment disappear from the sight of all who 
knew her, who would suspect the kind, attentive, and affectionate husband 
as being the cause? Belle Elmore was a woman who attracted friends 
a busy woman, enjoying life for the pleasure it gave her and for the good 
she could do to others. She was described as a bright, vivacious woman, 
fond of life, fond perhaps inordinately fond of dress and jewellery. 
Her friends said she was a good correspondent; but from the moment 
that Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti left the house in the early morning of 1st 
February she passed out of the world which knew her as completely as 
if she were dead. She left behind her everything she would have left if 
she had then died money, jewels, furs, clothes, home, and husband. The 
prisoner made up his mind that she had left never to return. He at 
once began to convert her property, and on 12th March Ethel Le Neve, 
who had been seen wearing a brooch and furs belonging to Belle Elmore, 
went permanently to live with him at 39 Hilldrop Crescent. Crippen was 
therefore quite certain that his wife would never return, but he did not tell 
her friends he knew she would never return. He started a campaign of lies 
to account for her disappearance. He knew that if his wife did not attend 
the meeting of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild on 2nd February inquiries 
would be made, and so he sent by the hand of Le Neve two letters to the 
Guild and to Miss May, one of the officials of the Guild. Then came 
the story of her disappearance to America, and the invention of further 
lies because a visit to America might be expected to terminate at some 
time or other to account for the fact that she was never to return. On 
23rd March he told Mrs. Martinetti that he had very bad news, and was 
momentarily expecting worse. He said that if anything should happen 
to Belle he was going to France for a week. Mrs. Martinetti said, " What- 
ever for?" He said, "Oh, I shall want a change," the truth being 
that at that time he had arranged an Easter trip to Dieppe with Ethel 
Le Neve. The slate had to be wiped clean of Belle Elmore before he 
started, and from Victoria on the early morning of 24th March he sent 
the telegram to Mrs. Martinetti stating that Belle died the previous 
night at six o'clock ; and, that nothing should remain to interfere with the 
rest he was seeking in France, he sent the advertisement to the Era 
announcing that Belle Elmore had died in California no nearer than that 
on 23rd March. The object of the advertisement was to stop people asking 
4 



Opening Statement for the Crown. 

Mr. Muir 

a lot of questions. But Belle Elmore's friends were not prevented from 
asking a lot of questions, and they got some answers. They obtained, 
too, the address of Crippen's son. The ladies wished to send a wreath 
to their friend's grave in California. They were told that the wreath 
was no use she had been cremated, and her ashes were to be brought 
home; they could have their little ceremony then. And on 18th May 
he solemnly announced that he had the ashes at home. 

Then the ladies became still more curious. They wanted to know 
the name under which Belle Elmor sailed for America, but Crippen was not 
at all sure about it. It must have been obvious to Crippen then that his 
statements with regard to the disappearance of Belle Elmore were being 
doubted, and it was perfectly plain after his interview with Chief 
Inspector Dew that it was useless to proceed with the stories he had told. 
He said to the inspector, "It is untrue what I have told them about her 
death. So far as I know she is alive." Crippen then made a long 
statement giving quite a new version of his wife's disappearance. He 
said that in 1902 or thereabouts he had to visit America, and that while 
he was away his wife had formed the acquaintance of a man named Bruce 
Miller, becoming attached to him; that upon his return her manner 
changed, and that she threatened in outbursts of temper to leave him and 
go to Bruce Miller; and that she had said that when she left him she 
would pass altogether out of his life, and that he would never hear from 
her again. He went on to say that because of a lack of courtesy to Mr. 
Martinetti at the dinner party on 31st January his wife said that this 
was the finish of it, that she would go, and that he could do what he 
thought best to cover up the scandal with the Guild and their mutual 
friends. On 1st February he returned from business to find his wife 
gone, and then he said that he sat down to think how he could account 
for her absence. Crippen in this statement said that he had never pawned 
any of hia wife's jewels. That he must have known to be false, as were 
also the statements which he gave to account for his wife's disappearance. 
He said that she had gone to join Bruce Miller. Bruce Miller would be 
called, and he would say that he had not seen Belle Elmore since 1904. 

Almost while he was in the act of making those statements in order 
to gain a few hours' delay from the police officer who was making the 
inquiries, the prisoner was preparing for flight. The jury had to ask 
themselves why Crippen left, what it was he had to fear if his statement 
was true, that as far as he knew, Belle Elmore was alive. If that statement 
was true he had nothing to fear. He had nothing to fly from. But he 
fled. What he fled from was found on 13th July, when under the brick 
floor in the cellar of the house in Hilldrop Crescent where Belle Elmore 
was last seen alive on 1st February, where she was left alone at half- past 
one in the morning of that day with the prisoner, the police found human 
remains. It would be for the jury to say whether that was what Crippen 
had fled from. 

Whose were the remains so found? On 14th July they were care- 
fully examined where they lay in the cellar by Mr. Pepper, the eminent 
surgeon, and by Dr. Marshall, the police surgeon; and, having been 
examined so that those gentlemen were able to speak to the position of 
things as then existing, those human remains and some other things that 

5 



Mr. Muir 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



were found with them were removed to the mortuary, and there they were 
subjected to a critical examination. The remains were headless, limb- 
less, and boneless, and the sex could not be certainly determined on 
anatomical grounds. But some Hinde's curlers, with long human hair 
in them, and some feminine under-garments might be said to indicate that 
the remains were those of a woman. On the other hand, there were 
also in that grave with the remains some pieces of a man's pyjama suit 
and a large handkerchief which was probably not a woman's. The 
identification of the remains was almost impossible ; but there were certain 
indications. The human hair in the Hinde's curlers was naturally a dark 
brown, and it had been bleached to a lighter colour. Belle Elmore's hair 
was a dark brown, and she was in the habit of bleaching it to a lighter 
colour. Those facts were undoubtedly true of many other women besides 
Belle Elmore. The under-garments had been seen by some of Belle 
Elmore's friends, and they were such as Belle Elmore was in the habit 
of wearing, but they were also such as many other women besides Belle 
Elmore would wear. One piece of flesh was identified as coming from 
the lower part of the abdominal wall, and it had upon it an old scar. 
Belle Elmore was, in fact, operated upon in that region in 1892 or 1893, 
and the scar remained upon her body up to the time of her death, and 
was seen by two persons who would be called. The place of burial was 
significant. It was in the house occupied by Crippen and Belle Elmore 
together from 21st September, 1905, up to 1st February, 1910, and by 
nobody else, and in the house where Belle Elmore was last seen alive 
alone with the prisoner. Upon those facts it was for the jury to say whether 
they were satisfied that those remains were the remains, and could only be 
the remains, of the missing woman Belle Elmore. 

Another question that the jury would have seriously to consider was, 
who put the remains where they were found? In endeavouring to answer 
that question they would ask themselves, who but Crippen had. the oppor- 
tunity to put them there, if the surgeons were accurate as to the date of 
the burial some period of between eight months at the longest and four 
months at the shortest? Belle Elmore disappeared on 1st February, five 
and a half months before 13th July, when the remains were unearthed. 
The remains were mutilated in a way which indicated to the skilled mind 
of the surgeon that the person who did it had some acquaintance with 
anatomy and some dexterity in dealing with the dead bodies of either 
human beings or other animals. Crippen had a very good degree; he 
practised in America, and, according to his own statement, before he took 
his degree in America he spent some time in London visiting the hos- 
pitals. The putting of the remains in the place desciibed and the pre- 
paring of the hole in the cellar was an operation which would require both 
considerable time and entire freedom from observation. And from 1st 
February onwards for some considerable time Crippen was alone in the 
house. There were grounds for saying that the pieces of a pyjama jacket 
found with the remains belonged to Crippen. That was what Crippen 
leit behind when he fled on 9th July. 

The prisoner was not seen again by Inspector Dew until 31st July. 
Counsel narrated the story of the pursuit of Crippen across the Atlantic- 

6 



Opening Statement for the Crown. 

Mr. Muir 

to Canada and his arrest on board the steamship " Montrose," pointing 
out that Crippen was found with his heavy moustache shaved off and 
passing under the false name of John Robinson, while his companion, Ethel 
Le Neve, was found disguised as a boy, with her hair cut, and wearing 
the brown suit which had been purchased by Crippen's orders on the 
morning of 9th July when he was preparing for flight. When told by 
the inspector that he would be arrested for the murder of his wife he at 
first made no reply, but a little later he said, " I am not sorry; the 
anxiety has been too much." He wast searched, and on him were found 
two cards, one of which claimed their attention. This was a card which 
he had obviously had printed for the purpose of disguising himself 
under a false name. It bore the name of John Robinson and an address 
at Detroit. On the back was written a message obviously intended by 
him to be left somewhere for Misis Le Neve. It ran, " I cannot stand the 
horror I go through every night any longer, and as I see nothing bright 
ahead and money has come to an end I have made up my mind to jump 
overboard to-night. I know I have spoiled your life, but I but I hope 
some day you can learn to forgive me. With words of love, your H." 
One other statement the prisoner made at that time counsel called atten- 
tion to. Inspector Dew handcuffed him, and on explaining that this was 
recessary on account of the threat that he would jump overboard, Crippen 
said, " I won't. I am more than satisfied, because the anxiety has ."been 
too awful." On being further searched by the chief inspector, he asked, 
" How is Miss Le Neve? " adding, " It is only fair to say that she knows 
nothing about it. I never told her anything." The result of the search 
was that there were found sewn to his undervest four of Belle Elmore's 
rings and two of her brooches. 

On the return voyage on board the " Megantic," Inspector Dew, 
having his prisoner on what was for his purpose British territory, read 
to him the warrant. All that Crippen did was to signify that he under- 
stood, saying, " Right." On 24th August Crippen made a request to 
see Miss Le Neve when he was taken off the ship. He said, " I do not 
know how things will go. They may go all right, or they may go all 
wrong with me; I may never see her again, and I want to ask you, 
if you will, to let me see her, but I won't speak to her. She has been 
my only comfort for the last three years." He did, in fact, see her in 
the train on the way from Liverpool to London. On four occasions 
on the day of his arrest on 31st July, on the day when the warrant waa 
read to him, 21st August, on 27th August when he was charged at Bow 
Street, and on 21st September, when he was committed for trial oppor- 
tunities were given to him to offer any explanation of his flight if he had 
any to offer, and he did not avail himself of them. Therefore the fact 
remained that up to this hour Crippen had never offered to any police officer 
or any magistrate any explanation at all of his flight. 

He paused at .this moment just to recall to the minds of the jury 
what the case against Crippen was, resting there. There was on 31st 
January a motive, as he had explained, to get rid of his wife in order 
that he might consort with Ethel Le Neve. There was the fact of the 
total disappearance of Belle Elmore; the fact that Crippen was the only 

7 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Muir 



person who professed to be able to account for her disappearance. His 
first account was admittedly false; his second was followed by immediate 
flight. The human remains found in the cellar; the jjyiama jacket^ 
found with them; the remains mutilated by a persoifpossessed of such 
knowledge and skill as Crippen might be presumed to be possessed of. 
And if the case rested there, whose could those human remains be but 
the remains of Belle Elmore, and who but Crippen could have put them 
there? 

There was a further piece of evidence which would be placed before 
the jury. How did Belle Elmore, if it was Belle Elmore, meet her 
death? How did the person whose human remains were found in the 
cellar come to die? Examined by a skilled surgeon by post-mortem 
examination, no cause of death was discoverable in the remains. But 
the viscera were submitted to Dr. Willcox, the senior scientific analyst 
to the Home Office,, for analysis, and as the result of his tests Dr. Willcox 
found a quantity of hyoscin, sufficient to show him that there must have 
been in the body of the person whose remains these were more than half 
a grain of hyoscin hydrobromide, which was the form in which hyoscin 
was used for medicinal purposes. The drug was a powerful narcotic 
poison, but was not commonly prescribed. The form in which it was 
ordinarily sold for use by medical men was in tabloids, which could be 
dissolved and used by injection. The official dose was from a two-hundredth 
to a one-hundredth of a grain. From a quarter to half a grain was a fatal 
dose. Dr. Willcox found in this body indications that more than a fatal 
dose of this deadly poison had in some way been taken by the person 
when alive, and, from the distribution of the poison in the organs, that 
it had been taken by the mouth, and that the person had lived more 
than an hour afterwards. There was nothing in the viscera to account 
for death except hyoscin, and in the opinion of Dr. Willcox the cause 
of death was hyoscin, administered by the mouth. Hyoscin could be 
taken in sweetened tea and coffee without its presence being detected. 

What was the cause of death in this case ? Was it a natural death ? 
It seemed a preposterous question in view of the facts that they now 
knew. Would the remains have been buried where they were if the 
person when alive had died a natural death? Was that death the result 
of a criminal act by some person? Again, that seemed a preposterous 
question to ask in view of the state of the remains when found. What 
reason, other than the reason that a criminal desired to remove the 
evidence of his crime, would account for the state of the remains in which 
they were found every bone removed, the head gone, indications of sex 
excised and taken away? If they were satisfied that the person, whoever 
it was, whose remains were found in the cellar died from hyoscin poison- 
ing, who administered the drug? Belle Elmore, full of life, and the 
enjoyment of life, the good of life, was not likely to commit suicide, and 
if she had done so no one was likely to mutilate her remains. Of this 
drug not commonly known and not commonly used even by medical men, 
Crippen, on 17th January, 1910, bought five grains, which were delivered 
to him on 19th January. He ordered it from Messrs. Lewis <t Burrows, 
a firm of chemists in a large way of business, who in the last three years 

8 



Opening Statement for the Crown. 

Mr. Mulr 

had never had before such a quantity in their possession. Crippen, himself 
a customer for the preceding ten months, had never before ordered a 
fraction of a grain of hyoscin hydrobromide from Messrs. Lewis & Burrows. 
Crippen had to sign the poisons book, and in that he had to state for whom 
the drug was required and for what purpose. He made false statements 
in both instances. He said the drug was required for Munyons, which 
was untrue, because Munyons made no preparations in this country; he also 
said he wanted it for homoeopathic purposes, but the drug hyoscin hydro- 
bromide was not mentioned in the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia. What 
had become of it? Unless* it went into the body of Belle Elmore, and unless 
the remains were those of Belle Elmore, no explanation was forthcoming 
at all as to what became of the poison. 

He had opened the case in so much detail in order that the jury 
might be able to appreciate the evidence as it would be given before them 
piecemeal. While that evidence was being given he asked them, in the 
interests of the duty they had to perform, the interests of justice, to keep 
in their minds these questions What had become of Belle Elmore? Whose 
remains were those in that cellar? If they were Belle Elmore's, what 
explanation of their being found in that place was there, mutilated as they 
were? Keeping these questions before their minds he thought they would 
be able to apply the evidence to their verdict when the time came. 



Evidence for the Prosecution. 

FREDERICK LOWN, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I reside at 
12 Ashbrook Road, Highgate. I am the owner of the house, 39 Hilldrop 
Crescent, Camden Road. I know Crippen the prisoner. I produce exhibit 
55, being an agreement in which I let to the prisoner the house, 39 Hilldrop 
Crescent, on 21st September, 1905, for three years, at a rent of 52 lOa. 
per .annum. After three years the tenancy continued from year to year. 
The agreement is signed " Hawley Harvey Crippen." At th expiration of 
the agreement the prisoner continued to live in the house. The rent was 
paid to me very regularly after it was due. On 16th March of this year 
I went and saw the prisoner at his house, when he told me that he wished 
to leave the house in three months' time, because he had had property left 
him in America. He said that he was unable to go to America himself, and 
his wife was going out to attend to the business for him. 

Did he tell you that his wife was going to America, or had gone? 
He told me that his wife had gone. I asked for a written notice, and I 
received the letter (exhibit 56) from the prisoner, on which I endorsed on 
the back the date when I got it, 22nd March. That letter reads 

Gentlemen, In accordance with our present agreement, please accept this 
as a formal quarter's notice that I shall give up my tenancy of Hilldrop 
Crescent N., on June 24th, 1910. I have to thank you for the many courtesies 
rendered to me in the past, and I hope that I shall succeed in securing a tenant 
for you to succeed me as discussed in my conversation with your Mr. Frederick 
Lown a few days ago. With compliments, I am, faithfully yours, 

H. H. CRIPPEN. 
9 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Frederick Lown 

The prisoner called upon me at my house afterwards between 17th and 20th 
June, and arranged with me to stay on in the house until 29th September. 
On that occasion I asked him how his wife was, and he told me that she 
was dead. I believe he said she had died in New York, bait I cannot say 
for certain; it was in America. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN The rent was paid regularly. There 
might be a delay of a week or so in the payment of the quarterly rent, 
but just the usual time there was nothing unusual as to time. When 
I saw the accused in March, 1910, it was in his own house in Hilldrop 
Crescent. He was alone as far as I knew. 

Did he show the least sign of anxiety or agitation? No, I do not 
think so; I do not remember. 

Any sign of being harasised in any way? No. 

Any indication that he had anything on his mind? Not as far as I 
could judge. 

The same remarks will apply to the interview you had with him about 
17th June? Well, I could not quite say that. On that occasion, when I 
asked the accused after his wife's health, when he told me that he certainly 
seemed to be a little bit - 

When he told you that his wife had died he then seemed a bit agitated ? 



I mean as a man might well be if he really cared for his wife and if 
in truth she had died that kind of look? Well, I could not say anything 
about that. 

Can you describe it in any way ? I cannot describe it any further than 
I have done. I went to Hilldrop Crescent in March casually; he had not 
written asking me to come. 

Dr. JOHN HERBERT BURROUGHS, examined by Mr. INGLEBY ODDIB I am 
a doctor, and live at 169 City Road. I know the accused, and I also knew 
his wife. I first met him in 1902. He was then living with his wife in 
Store Street. I knew his wife as Mrs. Crippen, and also by her professional 
name, Miss Belle Elmore. I believe that she was occasionally appearing 
at a music hall at that time. I was friendly with both of them, and then 
I lost sight of them for a time. I think it must have been about 1904 when 
I met them again. They were istill living at Store Street then. I remem- 
ber their moving to Hilldrop Crescent about 1905. My wife and I visited 
them there from time to time. 

What kind of woman was Mrs. Crippen ? She was a vivacious woman, 
I should say about thirty years of age, bright and cheerful, a very pleasant 
woman generally. She was very fond of dress, and dressed very well 
indeed. At times she wore a quantity of jewellery. As far a.g I know, she 
was in the very best of health. She was a stoutish woman. 

Did she and her husband seem to be well off at Hilldrop Crescent? They 
lived very well ; they seemed to lack nothing. I do not think they had a 
servant, at least never when I was there. They occasionally had a char- 
woman. 

They always seemed to be on good terms? Oh, yes. As far aa I can 
remember I last saw Mrs. Crippen alive in the beginning of January of 
1 > 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. J. H. Burroughs 

this year, at a meeting of the Music Hall Guild. I am the honorary 
physician to the Guild. I believe the committee meet every Wednesday at 
Albion House. When I last saw Mrs. Crippen she appeared to be in her 
usual health. I identify exhibits 28 and 29 as photographs of Mrs. Crippen. 
The photograph No. 29 was taken very shortly after the annual dinner of 
the Music Hall Guild in September, 1909. I cannot tell when the other 
^photograph was taken. The photograph No. 29 is a specially good like- 
ness. About eight or nine persons would attend the committee meetings 
of the Guild on the Wednesday afternoons. I first heard of Mrs. Crippen's 
death from Mrs. Martinetti in March, and in consequence of what I heard 
I wrote a letter to the accused, of which exhibit No. 30 is a copy. That 
letter is dated 7th April, 1910, and it is as follows : 

-j 

Dear Peter, Both Maud and myself were inexpressibly shocked and astounded 
to learn of poor Belle's death. We hasten to send our very heartfelt condolences 
on your great loss. As two of her oldest friends, why ever did not you send 
us a line? Do please give us some details of how and where she died. Maud 
is very much upset, and so anxious to hear. Only quite casually we heard she 
had suddenly left for America, and were daily expecting a letter or a card from 
her. Maud could not understand it, as Belle always wrote her on such important 
occasions, so could only think Belle wanted to cut all her old friends. And 
now to learn she is no more. It is all so sudden that one hardly realises the 
fact. We should so like to send a letter of condolence to her sister, of whom 
she was so fond, if you would kindly supply her address. Yours sincerely, 

J. H. B. 

I knew the accused by the name of " Peter." " Maud " is my wife. The 
sister to whom I was referring 1 was one of whom Mrs. Crippen was very 
fond ; I believe her name was Tessa, and she lived somewhere in America 
in New York, I understood. In reply to that letter I received the letter, 
exhibit 31, dated 6th April, from Albion House: 

My dear Doctory I feel sure you will forgive me for my apparent neglect, 
but really I have been nearly out of my mind with poor Belle's death so far 
away. She was not with her sister, but out in California on business for ine, 
and, quite like her disposition, would keep up when she should have been in 
bed, with the consequence that pleuro-pneumonia terminated fatally. Almost 
to the last she refused to let me know there was any danger, so that the cable 
that she had gone came as a most awful shock to me. I fear I have sadly 
neglected my friends, but pray forgive, and believe me most truly appreciative 
of your sympathy. Even now I am not fit to talk to my friends, but as Boon 
as I feel I can control myself I will run in on you and Maud one evening. I 
am, of course, giving up the house, and every night packing things away. With 
love to both, and again thanking you for your kindness, I am, as ever, yours, 

PETEE. 

That letter is written on ordinary black-edged mourning paper. I have 
not seen anything of the accused since then, except in Court. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLY JENKINS I had known Dr. Crippen and 
his wife for the past eight years and I have seen them off and on for the 
last six years. 

You have had conversations with Dr. Crippen a regards hisi profes- 
sion? I have discussed professional matters at times probably. 

Did he tell you that ho made a specialty of the ear, the eye, and the 
nosef Yes. 

And that he had not acted as a general practitioner? Certainly. He 

11 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. J. H. Burroughs 

told me that some considerable time ago, in the early stages of our 
acquaintanceship. 

You had an opportunity of observing his manner towards his wife, 
had you not? Yes. 

Would you describe him as a kind-hearted, well-mannered man? 
He always appeared exceedingly kind-hearted and courteous towards his 
wife. 

Always wilHng to render her any little service he could ? Certainly. 

Would you describe Mrs. Crippen as a well-dressed woman? Yes, 
certainly. She was of smart appearance, and always tidily and neatly 
dressed at all events outside, not so much indoors, of course. I would 
call her a smart woman, and a woman of neat appearance. 

Have you noticed at times that she was sometimes hasty in her manner 
towards Dr. Crippen ? Yes, at times, somewhat hasty. 

Mrs. CLARA MARTTNETTI, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I live 
at 1 King Edward's Mansions', Shaftesbury Avenue, with my husband, 
Mr. Paul Martinetti, who is a retired music hall artiste. I first made the 
acquaintance of Dr. and Mrs. Crippen about eighteen months ago, and 
from that time I knew Mrs. Crippen as honorary treasurer of the Music 
Hall Ladies' Guild. I was a member of that Guild, and we had our 
meetings every Wednesday at Albion House, New Oxford Street. As 
honorary treasurer Mrs. Crippen always attended. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Has Albion House any other connection 
with the case? 

Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS In fact, the prisoner had his business there 
as a dentist, as well as Munyons also. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The Guild had one room there in which 
they met, and for which they paid. 

Examination continued I saw Mrs. Crippen at the meetings every 
Wednesday. I knew her and her husband pretty well. I used to go and 
see them at Hilldrop Crescent, and they came to see me and my husband 
at our flat. The last time I saw Mrs. Crippen was on Monday, 31st 
January of this year. I saw Mr. Crippen first on that day when he called 
at my flat between four and five o'clock, and said that Belle would like 
us to come and have dinner with them that evening. I said that I did 
not know whether we could go, as my husband Paul had gone to the doctor, 
and that when he came home from the doctor he felt rather weak, and I 
did not think he would care to go out afterwards. Mr. Crippen said, in 
reply to that, " Make him come; it will cheer him up if we have a game of 
whist afterwards." I did not give any decided answer then, because I had 
to wait till my husband came home; I expected him home about six o'clock. 
Mr. Crippen said he would come back, and then he left. My husband came 
home about six o clock, and I mentioned the invitation to him. Mr. Crippen 
came back about the same time, and my husband agreed to go, and, in 
fact, Le and I went to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and had dinner there with 
Mr. Crippen and his wife. We arrived there about eight o'clock. There 
were just the four of us there. We had dinner in the room next the 
kitchen; it is really called the breakfast room, but it is their dining room. 
12 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Mrs. C. Martinetti 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is it on the ground floor or on the basement 1 

Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS It is the level of the garden; the other 
rooms are up a step. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The cellar is on the same floor? 

Mr. TRAVEKS HUMPHREYS On the same floor. 

Examination continued There was no servant in the house. Mrs. 
Crippen herself cooked the dinner, and I helped to serve it. After dinner 
we went upstairs to their parlour, which was above the room which we 
had just left, and began our game of whist. I helped Mrs. Crippen to clear 
away the dinner things. We spent the evening playing cards, and we left 
about half -past one. It was quite a nice evening. 

Was there any quarrel of any sort that you saw or heard during the 
evening? No, I saw nothing. 

Was your husband quite well during the evening or not? Well, he 
was not well altogether from the beginning, you see, and then he caught a 
chill there; he went into a certain room where there was a window open. 
When we left at 1.30 Mrs. Crippen stood at the top of the steps, and I 
said " Good-night, Belle," and, of course, kissed her; she wanted to come 
down the steps with me, but I said, " Don't come down, Belle, you will 
catch a cold." 

All that evening did she seem to be in quite good health ? She seemed 
so, yes, to me. 

And spirits? She was quite herself. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Just tell us what sort of a lady Mrs. 
Crippen was? Was she always bright and in good spirits? Oh, yes. She 
was very jolly. 

Full of spirits, you mean? Yes, she was nice. 

On this evening did she appear to you to be well? Oh, yes, she was 
quite well. 

Examination continued I never saw her again after that night. 
Next day, 1st February, I saw Mr. Crippen about mid-day when he called 
at our flat, and said, " How rs Paul? " I said, "Well, he is not worse, 
thank God, and he has just gone into a nice sleep ; if you don't mind I 
won't waken him." My husband was then in bed. I said to Mr. 
Crippen, " How is Belle? " and he said, " Oh, she is all right." I said, 
" Give her my love," and he said, " Yes, I will. ' I do not think I saw 
him again for about a week when he came to see me at my flat. Before 
I saw him I heard from Miss May that Miss Elmore had left for America. 
When Mr. Crippen came I said, " Well, you're a nice one; Belle gone to 
America, and you don't let us know anything about it. Why did you 
not send us a wire? I would have liked to go to the station and bring some 
flowers." He said there had not been any time; that late on the Tuesday 
night they received a cable to say that one of them must go to America, 
" and as she wanted to go I let her go." He said he had to look out 
for some papers, and the rest of the night they did the packing. I 
said, ''Packing and crying, I suppose?" He said, "Oh, we have got 
past that." I said, "Did she take all her clothes with her?" He 
said, " One basket." I said, " That would not be enough, one basket, 
to go all that way," or something like that. He said, " She can buy 
D 13 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mrs. C. Martinettl 

something more over there." Then I said, "Oh, she is sure to send me 
a postcard from the ship." I do not know what he said in reply to that, 
but I think he nodded his head. He then left me. He called again about 
a week afterwards, and I said to him that Belle had never sent me a 
postcard, adding, " I suppose she will write when she gets to New York; 
I suppose she will write from New York." He said, " Oh, she does not 
touch New York; she goes straight on to California." I again saw him 
some days after that, and I asked him if he had heard from Belle, but 
he said "No." I asked him if he was going to the ball of the Music 
Hall Ladies' Benevolent Fund, and he said that he did not think so. I 
said, "If you want to go, Paul can get you the tickets from the club ; 
they are half a guinea each," and he replied, " All right, I will take two." 
I attended the ball, which I think was held on 20th February. Mr. 
Crippen was there, and Miss Le Neve, his lady typist, was along with him. 
A lady came up to me, and after she had spoken to me I looked at Miss Le 
Neve and noticed that she was wearing a brooch very similar to the brooch 
exhibit 11, which is now shown to me. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a sort of star, gentlemen, with 
apparent brilliants. 

Examination continued When you saw her wearing that brooch, 
or one like it, did you recognise it as one that you had seen anybody else 
wear? Well, I only thought Belle Elmore I only thought that Mrs. 
Crippen wore it, but I am not sure. After the ball Mr. Crippen called 
again at my flat', and I asked him if he had not heard yet from Belle. 
He said, " Yes, and I cannot make it out; I have a letter from my 
relations to say that she is very ill, and had something the matter with 
one of her lungs. At the same time I also got a letter from Belle to say 
that I must not worry, she is not as bad as they say." I do not remember 
how long that was after the ball. The next thing I heard from the accused 
was by the letter exhibit No. 32, dated Sunday, 20th March. That 
letter is as follows : 

Dear Clara and Paul, Please forgive me not running in during the week, 
but I have really been so upset by very bad news from Belle that 1 did rot 
feel equal to talking about anything, and now I have just a cable saying she is 
so dangerously ill with double pleuro-pneumonia that I am considering if I had not 
better go over at once. I do not want to worry you with my troubles, but I 
felt I must explain why I had not been to see you. I will try and run in during 
the week and have a chat. Hope both of you are well. With love and best 
wishes. Yours sincerely, PETER. 

I saw the accused again on the Wednesday before Easter, 23rd March, 
after our Guild meeting. Mrs. Eugene Stratton and I came downstairs 
and met Mr. Crippen at the big door at the entrance. Mr. Crippen said 
that he had a cable to say that Belle was very dangerously ill, and he 
expected another every minute to say that she was gone. Then he said 
if anything should happen to Belle he would go to France for a week, 
that he wanted some change of air. I got a telegram next morning, 
Thursday, from Victoria Station " Belle died yesterday at six o'clock. 
Please 'phone to Annie. Shall be away a week. Peter." "Annie" 
is Mrs. Stratton. Peter is the name I knew the accused by. I saw him 
14 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Mrs. C. Martinetti 

on the Wednesday after Easter, 30th March. Mrs. Smythson and I went 
to his office at Albion House and offered our condolence. We asked 
him where his wife had died, and he said in Los Angelos with his relations. 
I asked if he would give us the address, because the Guild wanted to send 
a letter of sympathy and an everlasting wreath, and he said that it was 
not necessary to do so, that his relations did not know what the Guild 
meant. I said, " Oh, yes, we have to do that, we would like to do it," 
and then he said, " I will give you my son's address." He gave his son's 
address to Mrs. Smythson, but I do not remember what it was. I said, 
"Was your son with her when she died?" and he said, "Yes." We 
did not have any more conversation then. He called at our flat some time 
after that I cannot say on what day. I said something about Belle's 
funeral, and he said, "Oh, she is not going to be buried; she is going 
to be cremated, and I am going to have the ashes sent over." 

After you heard from Mr. Crippen of his wife's death did you ever 
go tip to the house at Hilldrop Crescent? Yes, I went there along with 
Mrs. Stratton and her nephew. Mrs. Stratton's nephew knocked at the 
door. We were in a taxi-cab, and Mr. Crippen came down and spoke to 
us there. We asked him what boat Belle left by, and he mentioned 
some name which I do not remember. It was something like " La 
Tourenne " or "La Touvee." 1 

Do you remember whether, when you saw him at any other times, 
he told you anything more about his wife, or have you told us all? I 
think that is all. I have seen Mrs. Crippen in furs; I know I have seen 
her in two sets of furs. She had fox furs. (Shown exhibit 18) That is a 
foz fur muff. I have seen Mrs. Crippen with a muff very similar to that. 
When she wore the muff she also had the fox furs round her neck. (Shown 
exhibit 15) That is like the cape part of the set of fox furs. 

After Mrs. Crippen disappeared did you see anybody else wearing 
a set exactly like that? I have seen Miss Le Neve. I only saw Miss Le 
Neve wearing .such a set on one occasion, I do not remember when, but 
it was after I had heard of Belle Elmore'e death. 

Mr. TOBIN There will not be any dispute at all as to Miss Le Neve 
wearing the jewellery and furs that once belonged to Mrs. Crippen. I 
say that in order to save time. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am much obliged to you, Mr. Tobin. 

Examination continued In the summer of 1909 Mrs. Crippen stayed 
with me in my bungalow that I had on the river. When she was staying 
with me I saw part of her body when she was dressing or undressing, and 
I noticed a mark on the lower part of her stomach. It was right in the 
middle, and it looked to me to be the mark of an old cut. It seemed 
to be a little darker than the rest of the skin. It would be about 
6 inches long, I think. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN I saw her navel. I knew Mr. and 
Mrs. Crippen for about eighteen months. Mr. Crippen came often 
enough to my flat where my husband and I were, and Mrs. Crippen also 
came with her husband. My husband and I often enough went to their 

1 " La Touraine," probably. ED. 

15 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mrs. C. Martinetti 

house in Hilldrop Crescent. We were on very friendly terms with them, 
and we liked them both. 

You had many opportunities no doubt of judging Dr. Crippen's char- 
acteristics as regards his being a kind-hearted man apparently? Yes. 

And did you form the opinion from what you saw of him and heard 
him say and the way he acted, that he was a kind-hearted man appar- 
ently 1 Yes. 

You liked him and you liked his wife? Yes. 

And your husband did, too? Yes. 

Did he seem a good-tempered man always? He seemed so. 

Take the dining party on the Monday, 31st January. It was a 
happy party as you have told us a pleasant party? Yes. 

Everything seemed natural about it everybody talked naturally? 
Yes. 

You did not notice any indication of Dr. Crippen'e manner being 
different from usual ? I did not notice anything I have not noticed it. 

You never thought so at the time? I have not noticed it. 

It struck you, did it not, that Dr. Crippen' s manner was just the same 
as usual at that dinner party? Yes. 

Happy, talking, and all that kind of thing? Yes. During that 
evening my husband, who had been unwell and in the doctor's hands, had 
occasion to go to the lavatory after dinner. He went out of the room by 
himself. Next day, about noon, Dr. Crippen came to my flat by himself. 

Was his manner then just the same asi it had been during the eighteen 
months that you had known him? Yes. 

You did not think it was at all odd that Dr. Crippen should call on 
you to ask after your husband, who had been in the doctor's hands? No. 

You thought it was quite a natural thing for the doctor to do? Yes. 

And when he came and asked after your husband on the next day at 
noon, the 1st February, did his manner seem just the same as it had 
always been? Yes, it did to me. 

No sign of anxiety or fright or agitation? No. I have not noticed 
anything. 

You did not notice anything of that kind ? No. 

About a week later he came to your flat, did he not, and you said to 
him, " You're a nice one; why did you not tell me that your wife <vas 
going off to America "? Yes. 

He came to your flat on several occasions between the dinner party 
on 31st January and the Easter time? Yes. 

On none of those occasions did you ever notice any sign of his being 
agitated, upset, or frightened? No. 

From the fact that he came to your flat on several occasions between 
the dinner party and the Easter time he never showed, I suppose, any 
desire to avoid you or your husband? It did not look like it. 

In fact, you yourself rather pressed him a little to go to the ball on 
20th February, did you not? I asked him if he would go I think I said, 
" Are you going? "and then I said, " If you want to go, the tickets are 
half a guinea each." 

That was a place where he knew it would be quite likely that Miss 
16 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Mrs. C. Martinetti 

Le Neve, if she went -with him, would meet a great many of Mrs. Crippen's 
friends, because it was the Guild ball? Yes. 

And that piece of jewellery which the jury have seen was worn quite 
openly, I suppose, upon the bodice of her dress? Yes. 

Did his manner at the ball seem just the same as usual? To me it 
was the same. I never saw Mrs. Crippen doing her hair at my bungalow. 
She told me that she dyed her hair, that she used some stuff to bleach it 
a little, to make it lighter. I would siay that her hair when she dyed 
it was fair. 

Auburn? Yes, it might be auburn, a kind of gold coloured. Her 
own natural hair was darker. 

Was her own hair dark brown? I cannot say about it being dark 
brown; I know it was darker. She was very particular about dressing 
up her hair. I have noticed when her hair was a little untidy from taking 
her hat off that it was darker at the roots. 

Looking at the photograph, apparently she did not wear a fringe? 
She wore her hair thrown over like this (indicating). It is like when 
a lady brushes her hair down and then you throw it over, you see, and 
leave it with a puff you see. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I had seen Miss Le Neve in the office 
before the ball. I might have heard her name before the ball. I always 
called her the typist, and when I saw her at the ball I recognised her 
as the typist. When I saw the scar on Mrs. Crippen's body she was 
wearing a dressing-gown or something like that. I had never seen this 
mark before, and when I saw it I did not speak to her about it. It 
caught my eye as being what might be called a substantial mark of some- 
thing like 6 inches long, like a long cut. I said to her, " Oh Belle, 
does that sometimes hurt you?" and she put her two hands to it, and 
said " No." 

Mrs. LOUISE SMTTHSON, examined by Mr. TRAVEBS HUMPHREYS I live at 
38 Plaistow Road, Brixton Hill. I knew Mr. and Mrs. Crippen for 
about fifteen months I should think. I am a member of the committee 
of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild. I attended a meeting of the committee 
on Wednesday, 26th January. Mrs. Crippen was present and seemed 
to be in her perfect health and spirits. I attended the dinner and ball 
of the Music Hall Benevolent Fund on 20th February. I saw Mr. Crippen 
there along with Miss Le Neve, his typist. I knew her as his typist. 
She was wearing a brooch similar to exhibit 1 1 . 

Mr. TOBIN I do not dispute that it was Mrs. Crippen's brooch that 
she was wearing. 

Examination continued In the course of the evening I spoke to Mr. 
Crippen and asked if he had heard from his wife lately, and then I aaked 
for her address. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE When I asked if he had heard from hia 
wife lately, he said, " Oh yes," and then when I asked for her address 
he eaid she was right up in the wilds of the mountains of California. 

Examination continued I then said to him, " When you get to hear 
of her will you let us know? " and he said, " Yes, when she has a settled 

17 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mrs. L. Smythson 

address I will let you know." Some time afterwards he gave me the 
address of his son. (Shown exhibit 50) I identify that a-s a page from 
The Era of 26th March, and I see an advertisement there in the column 
under the heading of " Deaths," the advertisement being " Elmore, 
March 23rd. In California, U.S.A., Miss Belle Elmore (Mrs. H. H. 
Crippen)." After seeing that about 30th March I went to Mr. 
Crippen's office along with Mrs. Martinetti. We offered him our sympathy, 
and asked him if he would kindly give us the address: where his wife died. 
He told us it was quite unnecessary as she was now dead; none of her 
friends in America knew of the Ladies' Guild, and so he thought it was 
quite unnecessary to give us the address 1 . We then said we were very 
anxious to send some little token if he would let us know where she was 
to be buried. He said that was also unnecessary, as they thought of 
having her cremated, and the ashes would be brought here, and we could 
have a little ceremony here. Mrs. Martinetti then spoke to him for a 
few minutes, and I again asked him for the address. He said, " I will 
give you the address of my son," and he wrote it in pencil and gave it 
to me. (Shown exhibit 37) That is what he gave me, and it bears 
" H. 0. Crippen, 1427 N. Hoover Street, Rural Delivery, Los Angelos, 
California." I wrote a letter and a postcard to that address. On 
24th May, during my absence from the Guild, Miss May received a letter. 
While we were talking to Mr. Crippen on 30th March he told us that his 
son was present when Mrs. Crippen died. We asked that particularly. 
I saw Mr. Crippen again on Wednesday, 18th May, I think it was, in a 
shop in Tottenham Court Road. Miss Le Neve was with him. When 
ehe saw us she left him, and went out of the shop. I went over and 
asked him if he had heard anything more about his wife's funeral, and 
he said, " Yes, it is all over, and I have her ashes at home." 

Cross-examined by Mr. ROOME I saw Dr. Crippen and Mrs. Crippen 
together about eight time. 

Would you agree that Dr. Crippen seemed always a good-tempered, 
kind-hearted man? Yes, he always eeemed so. 

Mrs. TERESA HUNN, examined by Mr. Mura I am known as " Tessie." 
I am the sister of Belle Elmore ; she was older than me. Her maiden name 
was Cora Mackamotzki, and at home she was known as Cora. The 
first time I saw the accused was when he came to my father's house with 
my sister about 1892 or 1893. My sister showed me a wedding card, 
but the accused was not with her when she showed me it. He was with 
her when she spoke to me about his having married her. She introduced 
him to my father and mother ae her husband. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I had not seen him before. 

Examination continued According to the wedding card which was 
shown to me they were married on 1st September, 1892. They came soon 
after that to us, and then they left. We were living at Long Island, and 
my sister went to New York, and then to Philadelphia. She came back 
to New York a few months after her marriage, and stopped at New 
York, and from there ehe came to our house. At that time I saw a scar 
on her stomach; it was not all healed, it was fresh. I saw that scar 
again seven years ago; it was healed much better then than it was the 
18 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Mrs. Teresa Hunn 

first time I saw it. It would be about 4 or 5 inches long and about 
1 inch wide, but I could not quite exactly say. It was more a cream 
colour than the rest of her skin, and paler looking. The outside, near 
the flesh, was paler than the centre of the scar. I remember on 15th 
April of this year my half-sister, Mrs. Mills, getting a letter from Dr. 
Crippen. (Shown letter exhibit No. 71) My half-sister brought that 
letter to my home. It is from 39 Hilldrop Crescent, N. London, 
England, and it is written on black-edged paper. It is as follows : 

My Dear Louise and Robert, I hardly know how to write to you of my 
dreadful loss. The shock to me has been so dreadful that I am hardly able to 
control myself. My poor Cora is gone, and, to make the shock to me more 
dreadful, I did not even see her at the last. A few weeks ago we had news that 
an old relative of mine in California was dying, and, to secure important pro- 
perty for ourselves, it was necessary for one of us to go and put the matter into 
a lawyer's hands at once. As I was very busy, Cora proposed she should go, 
and as it was necessary for some one to be there at once, she would go straight 
through from here to California without stopping at all and then return by way 
of Brooklyn, and she would be able to pay all of you a long visit. Unfortunately, 
on the way my poor Cora caught a severe cold, and not having while travelling 
taken proper care of herself, it has settled on her lungs, later to develop into 
pleuro-pneumonia. She wished not to frighten me, so kept writing not to worry 
about her and it was only a slight matter, and the next I heard by cable was 
that she was dangerously ill, and two days later after I cabled to know should 
I go to her I had the dreadful news that she had passed away. Imagine if you 
can the dreadful shock to me never more to see my Cora alive nor hear her voice 
again. She is being sent back to me, and I shall soon have what is left of her 
here. Of course, I am giving up the house ; in fact, it drives me mad to be in 
it alone, and I will sell out everything in a few days. I do not know what I 
shall do, but probably find some business to take me travelling for a few months 
until I can recover from the shock a little, but as soon as I have a settled 
address again I will write again to you. As it is so terrible to me to have to write 
this dreadful news, will you please tell all the others of our loss. Love to 
all. Write soon again, and give you my address probably next in France. 

From DOCTOE. 

The envelope is postmarked "London, W.C., 10.30 a.m., 7th April, 
10," and it is addressed to " Mrs. Robert Mills, o/o Mr. F. Mackamotzki, 
Green Street, West Avenue, Brooklyn, New York." Mr. Mackamotzki 
is my stepfather. I did not see that letter at my father's house before 
my sister brought it to my home. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN I am a full sister of Belle Elmore. 
My father's name was Mackamotzki. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE My mother was twice married. 

Cross-examination continued Mackamotzki was my sister's maiden 
name. My father was a Pole. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The second time I saw the ecar it wag 
more healed than the first time. I cannot exactly say whether it was 
a scar resulting from an operation or not, but I know it was a ecar. 

BRUCE MILLER, examined by Mr. Mum I am a real estate agent, and 
live at East Chicago, Indiana, U.S.A. I wae formerly engaged in the 
music hall profession, and I came to England to follow that profession. 
While I was 1 in England I made the acquaintance of Belle Elmore. I first 
met her some time in the month of December, 1899. I saw her for the 
last time about the first part of April in 1904. I saw her then at 37 
Store Street, London. I am living in East Chicago now with my wife 

19 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Bruce Miller 



and child, and have been there for the past four years. I waa travelling 
when I first went there, but I have been with my wife ever since. 

Has there been any proposition at all that Belle Elmore should come 
out to you? Never, I never heard of such a thing. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I never saw Belle Elmore again after 
April, 1904, but I have had communication with her. She would write 
to me about three or four times a year perhapsi always on Christmas, 
New Year, and my birthday. She wrote me good wishes and that sort 
of thing. 

Cross- examined by Mr. TOBIN I have been a. real estate agent since 
December, 1906. I became an estate agent because I was tired of the show 
business, and I saw a chance of making a little more money. I was not 
a failure on the music hall stage. I first met Mrs. Crippen at a house 
in Torrington Square, London, in December, 1899. Her husband was 
in America at that time, so far as I understood. I do not know how 
long it was after I was first introduced to Mrs. Crippen that her husband, 
Dr. Crippen, came back from America; it would be some time during the 
spring, about the time of the opening of the Paris Exposition. I visited 
Mrs. Crippen very often at the house where she was living during her 
husband's absence. I think her house was in a street called Guildford 
Street, but I could not say for certain. I could not say how much of the 
house she had, because I was only in the one front room. I would visit 
her two or three times 1 a week sometimes, and then sometimes I would not 
see her for a week or two weeks or about three weeks. I visited her 
sometimes 1 in the afternoons and sometimes in the evenings 1 . When I first 
met her I was on my way to Paris for the Paris Exposition. I was in 
Paris for about eight or twelve weeks, and I was there about the time Dr. 
Crippen came back from America. 

During a period of four or five months when Dr. Crippen was in 
America, were you engaged in London on the music hall stage? I was not 
playing on the stage at that time. 

Were you earning money? No. I was in a sort of partnership with 
a friend of mine, and he was furnishing the money for the attractions 
at that time, and had arranged for the Paris Exposition and some Paris 
people I do not know who they were, they were French people who were 
managing the attractions at the other end ; it was a sort of partnership 
affair. While I was in Paris I wrote to Mrs. Crippen, but not very 
frequently often enough to be sociable, to be friends. I was not 
writing her on business ; I was writing her in friendship. 

Were you writing to her as a lover? No. 

Were you fond of her? Yes. 

Did you ever tell her that you loved her? Well, I do not know that 
I ever put it in that way. 

Did you indicate to her that you did love her? She always under- 
etood it that way, I suppose. 

Then you did love her, I presume? I do not mean to say that. 1 
did not exactly love her ; I thought a great deal of her as far as friendship 
was concerned. She was a married lady, and we will let it end at that. 
It was a platonic friendship. 

I rather gathered from the answers you gave me that you communi- 
20 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Bruce Miller 

cated to her in some way that you did love her ? A little present once in a 
while or something of that kind. 

Do you know the difference between friendship and love? Yes. 

Were you more than a friend? I could not be more than a friend. 
She was a married lady and I was a married man. 

Were you more than a friend, sir? I could not be more than a 
friend I was not. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Answer the question whether you were or 
were not? I was not more than a friend. 

Were there any improper relations between you and her? No. 

Cross-examination continued Did you ever write love letters to her? 
I have written to her very nice letters perhaps. 

You know what a love letter is. Did you ever write a love letter 
to her? Well, I do not remember that I ever put it just in that way. I 
often wrote to her very friendly letters; I might say they were affectionate 
letters. 

Then you wrote affectionate letters to her. Did you write love letters 
to her? Affectionate letters. 

Ending ' ' Love and kisses to Brown Eyes ' ' ? I have done so. 

Now, sir, do you think those are proper letters to write to a married 
woman? Under the circumstances, yes. 

What circumstances? Because Dr. Crippen always knew all about 
it. I could not say whether it was from France that I wrote those letters, 
as it is a long time ago. 

You told the jury that the introduction was in December, 1899, and 
that Dr. Crippen returned from America about May, 1900? Yes. 

During that period you were part of the time in London and about 
twelve weeks in Paris? Yes. 

I understand you wrote letters to her of this kind when you were 
away? Yes, about that time. 

Why did you say then, her husband being in America, that he knew 
all about it? I did not say when he knew about it. He knew about it 
when he came back. 

You do not suggest he knew about it at the time you were writing 
them? That I do not know. When he came back from America he 
knew all about it. 

Do you agree now that those letters were most improper letters to 
write to a married woman during her husband's absence? I do not think 
they were, under the circumstances. 

Were you her lover, sir? I was not. 

Have you been to any house in London with her for the purpose of 
illicit relationship? I have not. 

Bloomsbury Street? No place. 

Have you ever kissed her? I have. 

Never done anything more than kiss her? That is all. 

Why did you stop at that ? Because I always treated her as a gentle- 
man, and never went any further. I last wrote to Mrs. Crippen some 
time after Easter Sunday of the present year. I addressed my letter to 
39 Hilldrop Crescent. I did not get any answer. I also wrote to her 
about 5th January of this year. 

21 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Bruce Miller 

Was that an affectionate letter? I do not remember. I think it 
was very short, because I had not heard from her previous to that only 
just a card. I cannot be positive about that, it being quite a while ago. 
I was writing letters to her during the year 1909. 

Were those affectionate letters " Love and kisses to Brown Eyes," 
and that kind of thing? They may have been. Sometimes I wrote to 
her that way, and sometimes I did not. 

You are still very fond of her? I should be if she were here. We 
have always been friends, and I should not stop now. She wrote letters 
back to me. 

Were her letters couched in the same kind of terms as your letters 
to her! Perhaps not quite so endearing. 

But still they were sufficiently endearing? They were friendly; they 
were generally very short, and they were letters that my wife has read. 
They did not contain endearing terms somewhat similar to those that I 
used when writing to her. 

Never ? Never. 

Did she encourage your attentions? My attentions were not of the 
kind you are perhaps speaking of. 

I call it attentions when you write " Love and kisses to Brown 
Eyes." Did she discourage those expressions in your letters? She did 
not, because they were not expressed as you want to interpret them. 

Did she ever write back saying that she did not like such expressions? 
She never did ; she did not say anything about it in her letters. 

Re-examined by Mr. Mum How was it you came first to make Belle 
Elmore's acquaintance? In December, 1899, a friend of mine a music 
teacher and I were occupying apartments in Torrington Square. Belle 
Elmore was dining with my friend one evening, and he introduced me to 
her. I merely shook hands with her and went away. I visited her at 
37 Store Street, and later on in Guildford Street during the time her 
husband was in London. I gave her several of my photographs. One 
of the photographs now shown to me was set on a piano in her husband's 
house. I do not know where the other photograph that is now 
shown to me was hanging. There were other two large photographs, which 
were hanging in her parlour at the time when I left and while her husband 
was in London. 

Were your relations with her, whatever they may have been, intended 
to be kept secret from her husband? Not at all. 

Were they in any way improper relations? No, sir. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I must put a question to you because 
we are dealing with a woman who is supposed to be dead. I wish to ask 
you definitely this : were there any improper relations between you and 
Mrs. Crippen? There never were. 

You were an affectionate friend, I understand? Yes, I was. 

How often did you see her husband and herself during the four years 
from May, 1900, up till April, 1904? I never met her husband. During 
the past two years I do not think I saw her more than perhaps six times. 

What I do not quite understand is this, why did you say to Mr. 
Tobin that her husband knew that you were going there if you never saw 
him? For the simple reason that I always went there when I felt like 

22 




Mrs. H. H. Crippen (Miss Belle Elmore). 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Bruce Miller 

going to call on her; I never thought anything about it. I never tried 
to avoid Dr. Crippen in any manner, shape, or form, and there were 
several occasions that I had reason to believe Dr. Crippen was in the 
house. In fact, I would always have been glad at any time to meet him 
when I should happen to call at the house. I cannot remember exactly 
when I gave Belle Elmore those photographs that have been shown to 
me, but I think it was during the last year of our acquaintance. The 
larger photographs were given to her just a short time before I went to 
America. I went to America about the 21st of April, 1904. From 1901 
to 1903 I was living in Clapham with some friends. 

Mr. Mum This gentleman has come over from America specially to 
give evidence, leaving his business and his family. Can he go back 
now? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If Mr. Tobin has no objection. 

Mr. TOBIN No, my lord. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Then he can go. 

MELINDA MAY, examined by Mr. INGLEBT ODDIE I am the secretary 
of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild, and I live at 5 White Gardens, Clapham 
Road. I knew Mrs. Crippen; she was the treasurer of the Guild for 
about two years, and she attended every Wednesday afternoon. I last 
saw her alive at the meeting on Wednesday, 26th January. She was then 
in her usual health. As regards her spirits, she was quite bright, and 
she was in her usual spirits when I saw her. I have known the prisoner 
for over two years. I visited at their house, 39 Hilldrop Crescent. 
There was a meeting of the Guild held on Wednesday, 2nd February, 
which I expected Mrs. Crippen to attend, but she did not come. Miss 
Le Neve came to the door at ten minutes to one with a pass book, a 
paying- in book, a cheque book, a letter to myself, and a letter to the 
committee. Exhibit 33 is the letter addressed to me that was brought 
by Miss Le Neve. It is as follows : 

39 Hilldrop Crescent, February 2nd. 
Dear Miss May, 

Illness of a near relative has called me to America on only a few hours' notice, 
so I must ask you to bring my resignation as treasurer before the meeting to-day, 
so that a new treasurer can be elected at once. You will appreciate my haste 
when I tell you that I have not been to bed all night packing, and getting ready 
to go. I shall hope to see you again a few months later, but cannot spare a 
moment to call on you before I go. I wish you everything nice till I return to 
London again. Now, good-bye, with love hastily, 

Yours, BELLE ELMORE, p.p. H. H. C. 

I knew Mrs. Crippen's writing, but I could not say in whose writing 
that letter is in. Exhibit 34 is the letter that was addressed to the 
committee of the Guild. It is as follows : 

39 Hilldrop Crescent, London, N. 
To the Committee of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild. 

Dear Friends, Please forgive me a hasty letter and any inconvenience I may 
cause you, but I have just had news of the illness of a near relative and at only 
a few hours' notice I am obliged to go to America. Under the circumstances 

23 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Melinda May 

I cannot return for several months, and therefore beg you to accept this as a 
formal letter resigning from this date my hon. treasurership of the M.H.L.G. I 
am enclosing the cheque book and deposit book for the immediate use of my 
successor, and to save any delay I beg to suggest that you vote to suspend the 
usual rules of election and elect to-day a new honorary treasurer. I hope some 
months later to be with you again, and in meantime wish the Guild every success 
and ask my good friends and pals to accept my sincere and loving wishes for 
their own personal welfare. 

Believe me, your faithfully, BELLE ELMOBE. 

That letter is not in Mrs. Crippen' s handwriting. A fresh treasurer 
for the Guild was elected that afternoon. I remember speaking 1 to Dr. 
Crippen about 17th February regarding his wife's subscription. I spoke 
to him in the corridor at Albion House. I told him that Miss 
Elmore's subscription became due on 17th February, and I asked him 
to let me have her address so that I could write to her. He said that 
she was away up in the hills 1 in California right up in the mountains 
and that if I would hand him the letter he would forward it to her, and 
no doubt she would authorise him to pay the guinea. I wrote a letter 
and left it in his office, so that he could redirect it to her. I saw Dr. 
Crippen several times during the following month of March. I remember 
seeing him on Wednesday, 23rd March, when he told me that Mrs. Crippen 
was ill very ill indeed and he was waiting for worse news. 

I have seen Mrs. Crippen wearing jewellery. (Shown exhibits 10, 
11, and 12) These pieces of jewellery are exactly like those I have seen 
her wear often. (Shown marquise ring, exhibit 22) There was one 
very often on her hand exactly like this. (Shown pair of earrings, 
exhibit 23) She had a pair exactly like this. (Shown diamond brooch, 
exhibit 25) I have seen one like this often on her bodice. (Shown rings, 
exhibits 26 A to F) I recognise one of these rings, which has a stone 
out. I remember on 10th March we were selling programmes in aid 
of the St. Saviour's Hospital Charity, and she told me that she had lost 
a stone out of her ring. (Shown gold watch, exhibit 35, and brooch, 
exhibit 36) I recognise these also. (Shown exhibits 13, 16, and 20) 
I have seen Mrs. Crippen wear furs exactly like these. The size of gloves 
that she wore was 6f . 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS The handwriting of the two 
letters which have been shown to me is not in the least like that of Mrs. 
Crippen. (Shown exhibits 44, 45, and 46, being jars containing hair) 
I was shown those jars by Sergeant Mitchell, who asked me if I knew 
whose hair was in the jars:, was it like Miss Elmore's, and I said, " No." 
Two were darker than her hair as. I knew her, and one was rather like it. 

Two had not the slightest resemblance? Two of them, I said, I 
did not recognise, because they were darker than hers, but the other 
one was rather like it the fair one. I had been told that they came 
from Hilldrop Crescent. 

Re-examined by Mr. MUIR I was shown these jars by Sergeant 
Mitchell and another gentleman. I do not remember the date, but I 
think it was the Thursday previous to Mr. Mitchell going to America. 

Mrs. EMILY JACKSON, examined by Mr. MUIR I am the wife of Robert 
Jackson. In 1908 I was living at 80 Constantino Road, Hampstead. A 
24 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Mrs. Emily Jackson 

young woman called Ethel Le Neve came to stay with me as a lodger in 
September of that year, and she stayed on to March, 1909. During 
that period she slept every night at home. She then went away, and 
came back to my house in August, 1909. She finally left me on 12th 
March of this year. On some occasions in February she slept away from 
home; she stayed away one night, and then she would sleep at home, 
and then she would stay away two nights, and then she finally slept away 
from home altogether. I cannot exactly say when she began to sleep 
away a Itogether . 

Did she ever sleep out at night before the time you are speaking of 
in February of this year? Occasionally at her sister's so she told me. 
In January or February the early part of February, as far as I can 
remember I noticed that she was wearing jewellery that she had not 
been wearing before. (Shown ring with four diamonds' and ruby, exhibit 
10) I saw her wearing a ring exactly like that. (Shown brooch, exhibit 
11) I saw her wearing a brooch like that, a sort of star brooch, but I 
do not know whether it was the same. I saw her wearing a watch. 
(Shown watch, exhibit 25) I do not think I have seen that one before. 
The watch she was wearing was a gold one chased I think. I saw her 
wear on the wedding-ring finger a plain gold band, like a gentleman's 
plain ring; I should not call it a wedding ring. (Shown brown fur coat, 
exhibit 69) Miss Le Neve gave me that coat early in February. Exhibit 
70 is a list of the clothes that she gave me. It begins with the short, 
brown fur coat which I have just spoken to, and then the list contains the 
following articles, " 1 black feather boa; a long cream coat; a long brown 
coat ; a long black coat ; a black voile blouse and skirt ; a grey and black 
striped coat and skirt; mole coat and skirt; black facings; a yellow 
underskirt; black underskirt; black skirt length, accordion pleated; 
heliotrope costume length ; white lace blouse ; blue and white silk and 
lace blouse ; two back hair combs ; heart-shaped locket, blue stones ; a 
lizard brooch, green and white stones; three new nightgowns; two brown 
hats; two old black blouses; four pairs of brown stockings; two pairs of 
blue, one pair of black, one pair of black and white, one pair of pink, 
one pair of white, and one pair of pink shoes." She gave me all those 
articles at different times 1 during February and March. Before that she 
had only given me a few odd things of her own nothing much to speak 
of. I remember on one occasion when Miss Le Neve and Dr. Crippen 
brought in a cab some things in a dress basket. I visited Miss Le Neve 
at Hilldrop Crescent once before she finally left me on 12th March, and 
twice after that date. Miss Le Neve was there by herself the first time ; 
Miss Le Neve and the French maid were there the second time; and Miss 
Le Neve, Dr. Crippen, and the French maid were there on the third 
occasion. I cannot remember when I saw her for the last time, but it 
was the night before Mr. Dew paid hrs first visit to Hilldrop Crescent. 

Cross-examined by Mr. ROOMB I was very friendly with Miss Le 
Neve. Before she finally left my house on 12th March she lived away 
from the house from time to time. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE After the middle of February, or after 
early in February? After early in February she slept away from my 

25 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mrs. Emily Jackson 

Cross-examination continued I have seen Dr. Crippen a good many 
times. 

Do you agree that he was a good-tempered and kind-hearted man? He 
always gave me that impression. 

I think you said at the Police Court that you thought he was one of 
the nicest men you ever met? I did. 

FREDERICK PEDGRIFT, examined by Mr. INGLEBT ODDIE I am the 
manager of The Era Newspaper Company. In consequence of a letter 
which came to the office on 24th March of this year we inserted an 
advertisement in the column of The Era headed " Deaths." That letter 
has been destroyed. I produce a page of our newspaper of 26th March 
containing the advertisement. Along with the letter there was a postal 
order for 10s. Our charge for inserting the advertisement was Is. 6d., 
and we returned the balance of 8s. 6d. to Dr. Crippen, which he acknow- 
ledged by the letter, exhibit 51. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE After that I think we may take it that 
the advertisement was inserted on Dr. Crippen's behalf. 

Mr. TOBIN Certainly, my lord. 

ERNEST WILLIAM STUART, examined by Mr. TRAVBRS HUMPHREYS I 
am manager to Messrs. Attenboroughs, pawnbrokers, 142 Oxford 
Street. (Shown marquise diamond ring, exhibit 22, and pair 
of diamond earrings, exhibit 33) These articles of jewellery were 
brought to me on 2nd February, last year, by a person whom I 
believe to be the prisoner. He asked me for a loan upon the articles:, 
and I agreed to lend 80 on them. He then, in my presence, signed the 
contract note (exhibit 24), " H. H. Crippen, 39 Hilldrop Crescent." 
On 9th February the same man came back again and brought the diamond 
brooch (exhibit 25) and six diamond rings (exhibit 26). I advanced 115 
upon those articles, and he signed the contract note (exhibit 27), " H. H. 
Crippen," in my presence. I do not remember whether I paid the money 
in notes or gold, but we generally pay in notes. We do not pay by 
cheque unless it is specially asked for. Our bankers are the London 
County and Westminster Bank, the Oxford Street branch. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLY JENKINS I did not know Dr. Crippen 
before these transactions, but I have heard that he was quite well known 
at our shop. 

He wasi known both by name and by address? Yes, I think so. He 
has not had articles of jewellery pawned at our place in the past, but he 
has had articles repaired. He may have pawned things on other occasions, 
but I personally do not know about it. When the police came to our 
shop there was no difficulty in giving Dr. Crippen's name and address. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I should think that the diamond ring and 
the pair of earrings might be worth 100. The articles on which we 
advanced the 115 would be worth about 130 in the ordinary way. 

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS, clerk in the Bank of England, produced 
exhibit 52, Bank of England note, No. 52688, issued to the London 
County and Westminster Bank on 4th February, 1910. On the back of 
the note there is the name " M. L. Curnow." 
26 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Frederick Hayles 

FREDERICK HAYLES, cashier at the Berners Street Branch of the 
London County and Westminster Bank, identified the Bank of England 
note, No. 52688, as having been issued by his bank to Messrs. Atten- 
boroughs on 9th February, 1910. 

MARION LOUISA CURXOW, examined by Mr. MUIR I am manageress 

to " Munyon's Remedies," who have an office at Albion House, Oxford 

Street. For some time before November, 1909, Dr. Crippen was manager, 

and afterwards, between November, 1909, and 31st January, 1910, he 

wasi agent on commission. His salary ceased in November, and he was 

afterwards paid commission. On 1st February, when I became 

manageress, his connection with Munyon's ceased. I knew Mrs. Crippen 

slightly; when she came into the office I generally spoke to her. I 

first heard of her being away from London about the end of February. I 

asked Dr. Crippen if she was away, and he .said, " Yes, she has gone for 

a trip to America." He did not give me any reason for her going. I 

first heard it said at Easter time that she was dead. I asked Dr. 

Crippen if he had enjoyed his holiday he had been away during the 

Eastertide and he said, " As well as he could under the circumstances." 

I asked him if it was true that Mrs. Crippen was dead, and he bowed his 

head. Ethel Le Neve was employed with the Yale Tooth Specialists, in 

the same building. I do not know where she was at Easter time. (Shown 

Bank of England note, exhibit 52) I got that note changed for Dr. 

Crippen on 9th February. In the beginning of March I put two envelopes 

in my safe for Dr. Crippen. One of them had " Dr. Crippen " on it, 

and the other one had " Dr. Crippen, personal." He asked me if I 

would mind it for him. On 8th July Dr. Crippen asked me if any one 

knew I had anything of his in the safe, and I said no. He then said, 

"If any one should ask you, know nothing," or "say nothing" I am 

not sure which " and if anything happens to me please give what you 

have there to Miss- Le Neve," and I answered " All right." This would 

be about half -past four in the afternoon. The envelopes were opened 

by me on Monday, llth July. In one of the envelopes I found nine 

deposit notes with the Charing Cross Bank for 600, and I also found 

some insurance receipts. Four of these are receipts from " Miss 

Belle Elmo re," amounting to 300 on various dates from September, 

1906, to March, 1909, and three are for 10, 250, and 10, in the 

names of "Miss B. Elmore" and " H. H. Crippen." In the second 

envelope I found some jewellery, which I recognise as the watch and 

brooch (exhibits 35 and 1 36). At our meeting on 9th July Dr. Crippen 

asked me to let him know what he owed me, and he settled up with me. 

Roughly, he was owing me about 5 for some advertisements that I put 

in for him during the week. (Shown exhibit 61) That is a cheque on 

the Charing Cross Bank for 37, bearing the signatures of Crippen and 

Elmore, and dated 9th July. Dr. Crippen filled that cheque in in my 

presence. It already had Belle Elmore's signature upon it. He asked 

me to cash the cheque for him, and he showed me the pass book to show 

that there was 37 and some few shillings at the bank. I cashed the 

cheque for him. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is Miss Elmore'e signature believed to be 
her genuine signature or not? 

27 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Marion L. Curnow 

Mr. MUIR Yes, as far as we know. 

Examination continued Munyon's do not make any of their remedies 
in this country, nor do they purchase any drugs in this country. All 
their remedies are imported ready from America. On 19th January of 
this year 1 was 1 simply working with Dr. Crippen, looking after Munyon's 
books. I do not know anything about the purchase of hyoscin on 19th 
January. 

Was any cash paid out from Munyon's or any entry made in Munyon's 
books of such a purchase? No. (Shown letters, exhibits 33, 34, and 
71) I recognise the handwriting there as that of Dr. Crippen. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN The handwriting is not in any way 
disguised. One of the letters is signed " Belle Elmore, per H. H. C." I 
have known Dr. Crippen for about twelve years. When I first met him 
he was general manager at Munyon's. I was also employed there at the 
same time. I have known him regularly ever since, and have been in 
contact with him endless times. 

Have you always formed the opinion that he was a kind-hearted and 
amiable man? Oh, yes. 

He was in the habit, was he not, of compounding medicinea that had 
to go by post? Yes, as far asi I know. 

He compounded scores of special prescriptions? Yes. 

You do not yourself know whether, for those special prescriptions, 
he had or had not to buy drugs from chemists? No, I do not know about 
that, 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That waa for something other than 
Munyon'<s? I had nothing to do with that; that was hisi own private 
business. 

Cross-examination continued Apart from his duties as manager for 
Munyon's, he to my knowledge made up prescriptions for patients. He 
had a room of his own at Albion House; it would be what one might call 
his own private room, and he was generally in that room alone. I do 
not know what he kept, or what he had in that room. I do not think 
there was a cupboard there, but I am not certain. I am not aware that 
he ever had any general practice as a medical man. I knew that he 
was a specialist for the eye, throat, and nose. I am aware that after he 
ceased to be agent for Munyon's on 1st February of this 1 year he continued 
to compound prescriptions as he had done before for patients, but I do 
not know whether or not he had to buy drugs for that purpose. After 
he ceased to be agent for Munyon's on 1st February he still came to 
Albion House in connection with the tooth specialist business; he used 
to come in almost every morning and see me. The room in which he 
carried on the tooth specialist business in Albion House was on the same 
floor as Munyon's, but quite distinct. Dr. Crippen ceased to be manager 
in November, 1909, and acted as agent on commission from then until 1st 
February, 1910. During those three months from November to January, 
I was still working with Dr. Crippen. I had practically no definite 
position we used to work together really. I became manageress on 
1st February. After that Dr. Crippen used to come and eee me very 
often in the mornings. 
28 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Marion L. Curnow 

Are you pretty confident that he came and saw you on the morning 
of 1st February? I cannot remember his not coming. 

During the rest of that week, and the following fortnight, did he come 
regularly every day? Yes. 

Did you notice any signs whatever of agitation or terror on his face? 
No, I cannot say that I did. 

Were his manner and conversation just the same as 1 they always had 
been 1 Yes. 

No frightened or hunted look about him? No. 

Nothing that you observed unusual? No. 

Re-examined Although Dr. Crippen was a specialist for the eye, ear, 
throat, nose, and teeth, he had patient for other things. 

As a general practitioner, do you mean? Yes, practically; he could 
give them anything for whatever their disease was. 

GILBERT MEKVIN RYLANCE, examined by Mr. MUIR I carry on business 
as a surgeon dentist under my own name at Albion House. I met Dr. 
Crippen for the first time about the middle of 1907. In 1908 I started 
the business of " The Yale Tooth Specialists " at Albion House, and Dr. 
Crippen became my partner. About March of this year I entered into a 
fresh agreement with him. I have not got the agreement here ; the police 
have a copy. Dr. Crippen agreed to put 200 into the business, and I 
was to put in my experience, knowledge, and skill. We were each to 
have half profits. I remember seeing Mrs. Crippen about 26th January 
of this year. I heard from Dr. Crippen about 1st or 2nd February 
that she had left. He asked me if I did not notice that he was lonely, 
that his wife was half-way across to America, that she had gone over 
on legal business, to settle up estates on account of his mother's death, I 
think it was. 

When did you hear it said that Mrs. Crippen wasi dead? A lady 
came to my place about 24th March, the Thursday before Good Friday, 
with a telegram. Dr. Crippen was then at Dieppe along with Miss 
Le Neve. He had told me himself a few days before Easter that Miss 
Le Neve and her aunt were going over with him. When he came back 
I asked him about his wife, and he told me that she was dead, but that 
he did not send me a telegram so as not to spoil my holiday. On 
Saturday, 9th July, I got to business about eleven o'clock. I saw Dr. 
Crippen, but he did not say anything to me at all. I should say that 
I saw him for the last time that day, between twelve and one o'clock. I 
waited till two o'clock for him to come back, and then I could not wait 
any longer. I did not see him again until I saw him at Bow Street Police 
Office. (Shown letter exhibit 66) That letter, which is written on my 
own headed paper, reached me on the Monday morning. It is dated 9th 
July, 1910, and it is as follows: 

Dear Dr. Rylance, 

I now find that in order to escape trouble I shall be obliged to 
absent myself for a time. I believe with the business as it is now going you 
will run on all right so far as money matters go. Plucknett's last account you 
will find in my desk. As to rent, you have only to send Goddard & Smith 
10 12s. 6d., as I have already paid them 30 off 40 12s. 6d. (this ia in advance 
B 29 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Gilbert M. Rylance 

up to Sept. 25). If you want to give notice you should give six months' notice in 
jny name on Sept. 25th, 1910. Long knows pretty much all of the business, and 
can take over the book-keeping. There will be several paid bills to enter on my 
file in my desk, the key to which you will find in the upper drawer of the little 
cabinet in Coulthard's office. I shall write you later on more fully. With 
kind wishes for your success. Yours sincerely, 

H. H. CRIPPEN. 



. I am enclosing Plucknett's account, which you can attend to for your- 
self personally. 

That letter is in Dr. Crippen's handwriting. I kept on the business 
in my own name. I had seen Chief Inspector Dew at the office on the 
previous day, 8th July. I asked Dr. Crippen who he was, and he said 
that he was a Scotland Yard officer who had come to find out if Mrs. 
Crippen had any estates to pay taxes on. After 1st February I saw 
Dr. Crippen in the company of Miss Le Neve. Mrs. Crippen's death 
was announced as having taken place on 23rd March two days before 
Good Friday and about a fortnight or so later he told me that he had 
married Miss Le Neve. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS Did you know that Dr. 
Crippen was making up private prescriptions? Yes, I knew he made up 
private prescriptions, but I did not know for whom. 

WILLIAM LONG, examined by Mr. Mum I am a dental mechanic. I 
have known Dr. Crippen since 1886. I have been in various businesses with 
him. I first knew Ethel Le Neve about 1901 or 1902. At that time 
she was a typist in the employment of the Drouet Institute. Dr. Crippen 
wasi looking after that business as the consulting specialist. I have been 
in the same employment as Dr. Crippen ever since, off and on, and, as 
far as I know, Ethel Le Neve has also been in the same employment. Dr. 
Crippen's usual time for coming to the office was about ten or half-past 
ten. On 9th July he was in the office when I arrived there between 
quarter -past nine and half-past nine. I asked him if there was any 
trouble, and he said, " Only a little scandal." He gave no further ex- 
planation. He gave me a list of clothes which he sent me out to buy 
for him. I bought a brown tweed suit. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Were you to buy them for a man or a 
woman, or what? A boy. 

Examination continued (Shown exhibit 67) That is the suit that I 
bought, as far as I can say. I also bought a brown felt hat, two shirts, 
two collars, a tie, and a pair of boots. These were all for a boy. The 
size of the felt hat was 6|ths. I thought it would be for the same person, 
but I did not know. I took these things to the back room 
of the Yale Tooth Specialists on the third floor room No. 91 and 
I left them there. There was nobody there when I left. The room is 
shut up on Saturday. I saw Ethel Le Neve about eleven o'clock that 
morning. She was wearing a hat, but I could not describe it. I saw her 
again about half -past eleven. I did not see her any more that day. I 
should say that I last saw Dr. Crippen that day about one o'clock. I did 
not know that he was going to leave. (Shown exhibits 68 and 68a) I 
30 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

William Long 

got that letter on the evening of Saturday, 9th July. It is on the Rylance 
Dental Specialists' paper, and is as follows : 

Liear Mr. Long, Will you do me the very great favour of winding up as 
best you can my household affairs. There is 12 10s. due to my landlord for 
the past quarter's rent, and there will be also this quarter's rent, a total due to 
him of 25, in lieu of which he can seize the contents of the house. I cannot 
manage about the girl. She will have to get back to France, but should have 
sufficient saved from her wages to do this. After the girl leaves, kindly send 
the keys with a note explaining to the landlord ; address Messrs. Lown & Sons, 
12 Ashbrook Road, St. John's Villas, Holloway. Thanking you in anticipation 
of fulfilling my wishes, I am, with best wishes for your future success and happi- 
ness, yours faithfully, H. H. CBJPPEN. 

I went to 39 Hilldrop Crescent that evening; the key had come in the 
letter. I did not take possession of any of the things that were there. 
My wife pawned some of the things on the Monday afternoon. The police 
came there on the Monday. My wife went round to Hilldrop Crescent 
on the Monday to give the French maid some food, and I went round in 
the evening. I saw my wife pick up a piece of paper, which I identify 
as exhibit 41 " Mackamotzki. Will Belle Elmore communicate with 
H. H. C. or authorities at once. Serious trouble through your absence. 
25 dollars reward to any one communicating her whereabout to (blank)." 
That paper, which is in Dr. Crippen's handwriting, was found in the 
sitting-room. On the same day, llth July, I found at Albion House the 
hat which I had seen Miss Le Neve wear. I also found a suit of clothes 
belonging to Dr. Crippen. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I could not say whether it was the same 
hat that Miss Le Neve had on the Saturday. 

Examination continued I found the French maid in possession of the 
house when I got there. The police sent her back to France. Between 
1st February and that date I on two occasions moved some things in a 
van from Hilldrop Crescent to Albion House. Amongst other things there 
was a. wooden box. (Shown ermine jacket, exhibit 57, and white fur, 
exhibit 58.) I found these in a wooden box after Dr. Crippen had gone 
away. They were taken possession of by Inspector Dew. About two 
months before Dr. Crippen went away he gave me some of his own clothing, 
and also some theatrical women's clothing, and feminine vests and 
stockings. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN I have known Dr. Crippen since 
about 1896 or 1897, and I have worked with him more or lessi since. 

You, like the other witnesses, remember that he was a kind-hearted 
and amiable man as far as you could see from his outward manner? I 
have always found him so. I could not say whether he had any general 
practice during the time I was with him, but I knew that he used to 
make up special prescriptions. He would have to buy the drugs for those 
prescriptions. He used to buy bottles, which he kept in a cupboard or 
cabinet in the room that was used as the office after he joined Dr. Rylance. 
During the period up to November, 1909, when he was manager for 
Munyon's, he used to prescribe for patients, making up drugs and posting 
them off. During that period he would be likely to have bottles, but I 
could not say where he kept them. During the period between November, 

31 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

William Long 

1909, and 1st February, 1910, he used similarly to prescribe for patients, 
and he would be likely to have bottles. These bottles were kept in the 
office of the Yale Tooth Specialists, where he used to make up the pre- 
scriptions. 

Take the critical time, which is early in February of this year; used 
he during that time to come daily to his work just the same as usual? 
Did he ever omit a single day as far as you remember? No. 

Did he come at the regular times? Yes. 

Did he ever show any trace of uneasiness 1 No. 

Any worried appearance about him? No. 

No hunted or worried appearance or anything of that kind nothing 
unusual about his manner? Nothing whatever. 

And diligent in his work as before? Yes. 

No trace of abruptness as. if he had got anything on hia mind? Not 
the slightest. He was just as kind as ever. 

And talking as freely and in the same way as he always did, with- 
out constraint or restraint? Yes. 

Re-examined Miss Le Neve was the book-keeper in the business that 
Dr. Crippen carried on. 

EDGAR BRETT, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am the assistant 
manager of the Charing Cross Bank, 128 Bedford Street, Strand. A current 
account was opened at our bank on 30th September, 1903, in the joint names 
of Belle Elmore and H. H. Crippen, Store Street, Tottenham Court Road. 
They had to sign cheques jointly. Exhibit 60 is a certified copy of the 
account as from September, 1909. The state of the account on 31st 
January, 1910, was 2 7s. 8d. debtor. On the next day, 1st February, 
that was increased to 2 13s. lid., and then on that day there was paid 
in in cash 17 13s. 9d. On 3rd February 40 in cash was paid in, 
and from that time right to the end of the account the account remained 
in credit. On 30th June there was a credit balance of 37 19s. 4d., 
which continued until llth July. On the llth July we honoured a 
cheque for 37 drawn on that account, that cheque being the exhibit 
which has been produced. There was also a deposit account opened at 
our bank on 15th March, 1906, in the joint names of Belle Elmore and 
H. H. Crippen. 250 was paid in to the credit of that account on that 
date. Exhibit 74 is a certified copy of that deposit account. So far as 
that payment in of 250 in the joint names of Belle Elmore and H. H. 
Crippen is concerned, it could be drawn out by either of those persons, 
but only with the authority of the other person. We would require to 
have a notice of withdrawal signed by both persons. On 20th November, 
1906, 50 was put on deposit in the name of Belle Elmore. Other sums 
were put on deposit in the name of Belle Elmore, the last being 15, on 
24th March, 1909, amounting to 330. That, along with the 270 in 
the -two names, made 600, which was subject to twelve months notice of 
withdrawal. It bore interest at 7 per cent. We got a notice of with- 
drawal of the whole amount, dated 15th December, 1909, and signed by 
Belle Elmore only. We accepted that, notwithstanding that part of the 
account was in the two names. 
32 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Edgar Brett 

If the notice had expired would you have paid it over without the 
signature of Dr. Crippen? Yes, I think so. The notice of withdrawal 
of the whole 600 would expire on 15th December next. Dr. Crippen 
has not attempted to draw out any of that money or to raise any loan. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIK I know from my experience that it is 
quite a common practice where husbands and wives have a joint account 
for the wife to sign blank cheques and the husband to put in the amount 
and sign it himself. When the money was paid into the deposit account 
the bank stamped a piece of paper showing that it was payable to either, 
or to the survivor. With a deposit account at 7 per cent, there must 
always be twelve months' notice of withdrawal. That notice will do 
if it is signed by either party, and at the end of the twelve months the 
money would be paid by our bank upon the receipt of either. Mrs. 
Crippen gave notice of withdrawal on 15th December. The money could 
not be payable to any one until 15th December, 1910. Mrs. Crippen 
herself sometimes paid money into the joint deposit account. I believe 
Dr. Crippen sometimes came and paid money into the Belle Elmore deposit 
account. There were six payments into the single account and four into 
the joint account. Four of the payments are signed by Belle Elmore 
alone, and the other two bear H. H. Crippen's name. As regards the 7 
per cent, interest payable on both the joint account and the Belle Elmore 
account, Dr. Crippen signed a good many of the receipts for interest. 

That means, I suppose, that he came for the interest and signed the 
receipt? Yes, the interest on both the accounts was handed to him. 
We had a verbal authority from the wife to do that. All the cheques 
on the current account were signed by both parties. 

The Court then adjourned. 



Second Day Wednesday, 19th October, 1910. 

WALTER DEW, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am chief 
inspector of New Scotland Yard. On 30th June a Mr. Nash came to 
Scotland Yard and made a statement in consequence of which I made 
inquiries, between 30th June and 8th July, with reference to the dis- 
appearance of Mrs. Crippen. On 8th July I went with Sergeant Mitchell 
to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and was admitted by a French servant. After 
a few minutes I saw Miss Le Neve. At that time she was wearing the 
brooch, exhibit 11. I did not see anybody else at Hilldrop Crescent. I 
had a conversation with Miss Le Neve, and then I went with her to Albion 
House, where I saw the prisoner Crippen. Miss Le Neve brought him 
down to see me on the stairs. He was a stranger to me up to that time. 
He was then wearing a rather heavy moustache. He took me upstairs to 
a room, and then I said to him " I am Chief Inspector Dew, of Scot- 
land Yard, and this is Sergeant Mitchell. Some of your wife's friends 
have been to us concerning the stories you have told them about her 

33 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Walter Dew 



death, with which they are not satisfied. I have made exhaustive in- 
quiries, and I am not satisfied, eo I have come to see you to ask if you 
care to offer any explanation." He said, " I suppose I had better tell the 
truth." I said, "Yes, I think that would be best." He said, "The 
stories I have told them about her death are untrue. As far as I know, 
she is still alive." I said, "Any explanation you desire to make shall 
be written down in your own words, and perhaps it would be more con- 
venient if you told me all about yourself." He expressed his willingness 
to do so, and he then made a statement which Sergeant Mitchell wrote 
down. That statement (exhibit 39) was read over to him and he signed 
it and initialled each page. 

Mr. TRACKS HUMPHREYS read the following statement: "Albion 
House, 61 New Oxford Street, 8th July, 1910. Hawley Harvey Crippen 
states: I am forty-eight years of age. After being questioned by 
Chief Inspector Dew as to the statements made by me that my wife, 
known as Belle Elmore, is dead, I desire to make a voluntary statement 
to clear the whole matter up. 

" I was born at Cold Water, Michigan, U.S.A., in the year 1862, 
my father's name being Myron Augustus Crippen, a dry goods merchant. 
My mother's name was Andresse Crippen, nee Skinner. 

" My mother is now dead, but my father lives at Los Angeles, Cal. 

" I was educated first at Cold Water, Indiana, and California, and 
then attended the University at Michigan until I was about twenty, and 
finished my education at the Hospital College at Cleveland, where I took 
the degree of M.D. 

" I came over to England in 1883, and attended various hospitals 
to see the operations, and returned to the States, and was assistant for 
three or four months to Dr. Porter, of Detroit. After that I went to 
New York and took a degree in special eye and ear work at the Ophthalmic 
Hospital. This would be in 1885. 

" After then I returned to Detroit, where I remained about two years 
as assistant to the same doctor. I then went to San Diego, where I 
practised as an eye and ear specialist for about two years. Before going 
to this place I was married to a lady named Charlotte Bell, of New York, 
and she accompanied me to San Diego. 

" We then came to New York. I have had only one child by my first 
wife. He was born at San Diego about 1887 or 1888, and his name 
is Otto Hawley Crippen. He is now married and lives at Los Angeles. 

" My first wife died, so far as I can remember, in 1890 or 1891. We 
were living at Salt Lake City, where I was practising as an eye and ear 
specialist. She was buried at Salt Lake in my name. 

" After this my son went to live with his grandmother, my mother, 
until she died. I then went to New York, and went as an assistant to Dr. 
Jeffery, of Brooklyn, and I lived with him. 

" About 1893, while with Dr. Jeffery, I met Belle Elmore, who was 
being attended by him. Her name at that time was Cora Turner. I 
forget where she was living, but she was living alone. She was only 
about seventeen years of age, and I, of course, was about thirty. 
34 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Statement by Accused 

" She, at this time, was living under the protection of a man named 
C. C. Lincoln, a stove manufacturer, of Water Street, New York. She had 
been living with him, but he had given up his house and had taken a room 
for her and was paying all her expenses. 

" I took her to several places for some weeks, as I was very fond of 
her, and one day she told me Lincoln wanted her to go away with him. I 
told her I could not stand that, and would marry her right away, and a 
few days after this I married her at a minister's house at Jersey City. I 
forget his name and the name of the street. 

" I had been married to her some little time when she told me her 
name was not Turner, but Kunigund Mackamotzki. She said her mother 
had been married twice, and her name then was Marsinger, and she was 
living in Brooklyn. Her mother had been dead some years. My wife told 
me her father was a Russian Pole and her mother was a German. 

" Her stepfather, so far as I know, is still living, and resides at Forrest 
Avenue, Brooklyn. 

" Her parents were in rather ordinary circumstances, but she had a 
good education, and spoke German well. 

" After getting married to her we went to St. Louis, where I practised 
as consulting physician to an optician in, I think, Olive Street. His name 
was Hirsch, I think. 

" We stayed there about a year, and we returned to New York, where 
I took a position as consulting physician to the Munyon Company. We 
lived in the office at East Fourteenth Street. 

" I was in New York for only a few months when the company trans- 
ferred me to Philadelphia. I was there with my wife about a year, and 
was then transferred to the firm's place at Toronto, where I managed their 
business. I forget where I lived, but we were there only six months, and 
then returned to Philadelphia. 

" I was there some time, and while there, about 1899, my wife, who 
had a good voice, went to New York to have her voice trained, as she 
thought of going in for grand opera. 

" I paid all her expenses, and occasionally visited her at New York, 
and then in about 1900 I came to England alone, where I was manager for 
Munyon' s at their offices in Shaftesbury Avenue, and I lived at Queen's 
Road, St. John's Wood. 

" It wasi in April I came over, and she joined me in August, as she 
wrote and told me she was giving up her lessons in grand opera, and was 
going in for music hall sketches. To this. I objected, and told her to come 
over here. She came, and we went to live at South Crescent. 

" When she came to England she decided to give sketches 1 on the music 
hall stage, and adopted the name of " Macamotzki," but she did not make 
anything at it. She gave a sketch at the Old Marylebone Music Hall, but 
it was a failure, and she gave it up. 

" After this she did not do anything in it for two or three years, until 
I had to go to America about two years after coming here. My firm sent 
for me, and I became manager in Philadelphia. 

" When I left England my wife and I were living at, I think, 62 
Guildford Street, and she remained there while I was away. I remained 

35 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Statement by Accused 

in Philadelphia from November till the following June, and sent my wife 
money regularly. 

" When I returned I found she had been singing at smoking concerts 
for payment, and that an American music hall artiste, named Bruce Miller, 
had been a frequent visitor at her house. 

" She told me that this man visited her, had taken her about, and 
was very fond of her, also she was fond of him. 

" I may say that when she came to England from America her manner 
towards me was entirely changed, and she had cultivated a most ungovern- 
able temper, and seemed to think I was 1 not good enough for her, and 
boasted of the men of good position travelling on the boat who had made a 
fuss of her, and, indeed, some of these visited her at South Crescent, but 
I do not know their names. 

" I never saw the man Bruce Miller, but he used to call when I was 
out, and used to take her out in the evenings. 

" When I returned to this country, I did not take up my position at 
Munyon's, but went as manager to the ' Sovereign Remedy Company,' 13 
Newman Street. 

" They failed about eight months afterwards 1 , and I then went as 
physician to the Drouet Institute, Regent's Park, and afterwards at 10 
Marble Arch, and they also failed. 

" From there I took a position "with the Aural Clinic Company, 102 
New Oxford Street, where I remained until they failed in about six months. 

" I then went back to Munyon's, 272 Oxford Circus, as manager and 
advertising manager. 

" I removed to Albion House as manager about eighteen months ago, 
after which I took it on as an agency, but, as it did not pay, I, in February 
last, handed it over to the company again, but for the last two years I had 
been running the Yale Tooth Specialist Company, with Dr. Rylance as 
partner, and am still doing so. 

" I ran what I termed the Imperial Press Agency, in connection with 
Munyon's, because by BO doing I got their advertisements inserted at a 
reduction. 

" At the present time I am interested in an ear-cure business, called 
the ' Aural Remedy,' at Craven House, Kingsway, and I work at an address 
in Vine Street. 

" I did not think anything of Bruce Miller's visiting my wife at the 
time. 

" After returning from America we went to live at 34 Store Street for 
about a year. During this time she adopted the stage name of ' Belle 
Elmore,' although she had had it in her mind when she came over, but I 
persuaded her to use the other name. 

" She got an engagement at the Town Hall, Teddington, to sing, and 
then from time to time she got engagements at music halls. She went to 
the Oxford as a comedienne, and was there about a week. 

" She also went" to the Camberwell, and also at a hall at Balham. She 
also sang at the Empire, Northampton, and various towns. 

" She would probably go away for about two weeks and return for 
about six weeks, but used to earn very little. 
36 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Statement by Accused 

" We remained at 34 Store Street for some time, and went to 37 same 
street for about two years, and about five years ago, in, I think, 1905, 
removed to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, for which I pay 50 a year. 

"It is quite four years since she ever went out at all to sing, and, 
although we apparently lived very happily together, as a matter of fact 
there were very frequent occasions when she got into most violent tempers, 
and often threatened she would leave me, saying she had a man she could 
go to, and she would end it all. 

" I have eeen letters from Bruce to her, which ended ' with love and 
kisses to Brown Eyes.' 

" About four years, ago, in consequence of these frequent outbursts, 
I discontinued sleeping with her, and have never cohabited with her since. 

" She did all the housework herself, with the exception of having a 
charwoman in occasionally. 

" About two years ago she became honorary treasurer of the Music 
Hall Ladies' Guild, and was here every Wednesday. 

' ' I never interfered with her movements in any way ; she went in and 
out just as she liked, and did what she liked; it was of no interest to me. 

" As I say, she frequently threatened to leave me, and said that if she 
did she would go right out of my life, and I should never see or hear from 
her again. 

' ' On the Monday night, the day before I wrote the letter to the Guild 
resigning her position as treasurer, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Martinetti came to 
our place to dinner, and during the evening Mr. Martinetti wanted to go 
to the lavatory. As he had been to our house several times, I did not take 
the trouble to go and show him where it was. After they had left my wife 
blamed me for not taking him to the lavatory, and abused me, and said, 
' This is the finish of it. I won't stand it any longer. I shall leave you 
to-morrow, and you will never hear of me again.' 

" She had said this so often that I did not take much notice of it, 
but she did say one thing which she had never said before, viz., that I was 
to arrange to cover up any scandal with our mutual friends and the Guild 
the best way I could. 

" Before this she had told me frequently that the man she would go 
to was better able to support her than I was. 

" I came to business the next morning, and when I went home between 
five and six p.m. I found she had gone. 

" I realised that she had gone, and I sat down to think it over as to 
how to cover up her absence without any scandal. 

" I think the same night, or the next morning (Wednesday) I wrote a 
letter to the Guild saying she had gone away, which I also told several 
people. 

" I afterwards realised that this would not be a sufficient explanation 
for her not coming back, and later on I told people that she was ill with 
bronchitis and pneumonia, and afterwards I told them she was dead from 
this ailment. 

" I told them she died in California, but I have no recollection of 
telling any one exactly where she died. 

" Some one afterwards asked me where my son lived, and I told them. 

37 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Statement by Accused 

" I then put an advertisement in the Era that she was dead, as I 
thought this would prevent people asking a lot of questions. 

" Whatever I have said to other people in regard to her death is 
absolutely wrong, and I am giving this as an explanation. 

" So far as I know, she did not die, but is still alive. 

" It is not true that she went away on legal business for me, or to see 
any relations in America. 

" I did not receive any cables to say that she* was ill, and it is not true 
that she was cremated at San Francisco, and that the ashes were sent to me, 
or that she sailed from Havre. 

" So far as I know, she has no claim to any title. 1 

" I have no recollection of telling any one my son was with her when 
she died. 

" We had a joint account at the Charing Cross Bank, subject to the 
signature of either, but it pleased her to think she was signing cheques, 
and she also did so, and several blank cheques were always already signed 
by her, and some of them have been changed by me since her departure, 
and there is one here now (produced). 

" When my wife went away I cannot say if she took anything with 
her or not, but I believe there is a theatrical travelling basket missing, 
and she might have taken this with some clothes. 

" She took some of her jewellery, I know, with her, but she left four 
rings behind three single stone (or solitaire) diamonds, and one of four 
diamonds and a ruby, also a diamond brooch. 

" She had other jewellery, and must have taken that with her. 

" I have never pawned or sold anything belonging to her before or 
after she left. 

" Everything I have told you is true. 

" I do not know what clothes, if any, she took away; she had plenty. 

" Whenever we quarrelled, and she threatened to leave me, she told 
me she wanted nothing from me. 

" I have bought all her jewellery, and, so far as I know, she never 
had any jewellery presents, and I do not know that she ever had any money 
sent her, except that Bruce Miller used to send her small amounts on her 
birthday and at Easter and Christmas, to purchase a present. 

" She suffered from bilious attacks, and I have given her medicine 
for that homoeopathic remedies. 

"It is true that I was at the Benevolent Fund dinner at the Criterion 
with Miss Le Neve, and sihe wore the brooch my wife left behind. She 
has also worn my wife's furs. 

" Miss Le Neve has been in my employ, and known to me through 
being employed by the firms I have worked for, for the past eight years, 
and she is now living with me as my wife at Hilldrop Crescent. I have 
been intimate with her during the past three years, and have frequently 
stayed with her at hotels, but was never from home at nights:. 

" After I told people my wife was dead Miss Le Neve and I went to 
Dieppe for about five days, and stayed at a hotel there (I forget the name, 

1 Presumably Crippen meant "claim to any title-deeds or estate." ED. 
38 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Statement by Accused 

but the proprietor's name was Vacher) in the names of Mr. and Mrs. 
Crippen. 

" My belief is that my wife has gone to Chicago to join Bruce Miller, 
whose business on the music hall stage isi a musical instrument turn, but 
I think he has now gone into another business, and has speculated and 
made money. Mr. Didcot was his agent when he was over here. 

" I shall, of course, do all I can to get in touch with her, so as to 
clear this matter up. 

" She has a sister named Louise, whose name is Mills, living with her 
husband, who is a soapmaker living at Brooklyn. They live with my 
wife's stepfather, Mr. Haraanger. 

" I do not know where any of her other relations live. 

" I cannot tell you how you can find or trace her, except as I have 
already said. 

" I will willingly go to my house with you to see if I can find any 
letter which may throw any light on the matter, and I invite you to look 
round the house, and do whatever you like in the house. 

" This is all I can tell you. 

" Any notes that I have changed through any one in this building 
were in connection with my business 1 . 

" This statement has been read over to me. It is quite correct, and 
has been made by me quite voluntarily, and without any promise or threat 
having been held out to me. 

" (Sgd.) HAWLBT HARVET CRIPPEN. 

" (Sgd.) WALTER DEW, Chief Inspector, Witness. 
" ( ,, ) ABTHUB MITCHELL, Witness." 

Examination of Mr. Dew continued I was engaged some hours taking 
the statement, from about twelve noon till about six in the afternoon. I 
then called Miss Le Neve in, and she was with me for a time while Crippen 
was out of the room. After a short time I saw Crippen again, and went 
with him, Miss Le Neve, and Sergeant Mitchell to 39 HilJdrop Crescent. 
Crippen quite readily agreed to come with me. He showed me into every 
room in the house, and I also looked round the garden. There were some 
things packed up in one of the rooms, and he said that they were about 
to remove. He told me that his wife did not keep a servant, and to save 
herself trouble she had locked up the two bedrooms on the first floor, and 
that he occupied the one on the top and she the one next to him. There 
are two rooms in the basement, quite level with the garden ; these would 
be the breakfast room and the kitchen. On that floor there is a coal cellar 
under the front-door steps. Then on the first floor, at the top of the 
steps, there are two sitting rooms. Above these there was the front 
bedroom, and then behind that was a bed and sitting room. Those are 
the rooms which Crippen told me were kept shut up. Above that again 
there were three small bedrooms, one at the front and two at the back of 
the house, bathroom, and the ordinary offices. After going over the house 
I went into the breakfast room, the room next to the kitchen, and I asked 
Crippen if he would show me the jewellery his wife had left behind. He 

39 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Walter Dew 

said, " With pleasure," and lie went away, and then came back bringing 
exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I said to him, " Of course I shall have to find 
Mrs. Crippen to clear this matter up." He said, " Yes, I will do everything 
I can. Can you suggest anything ? Would an advertisement be any good ? ' ' 
I said that I thought that was an excellent idea. He said he would insert 
it in various American newspapers, and together we composed an advertise- 
ment. Exhibit 41 is the draft advertisement in Crippen's handwriting 
" Mackamotzki. Will Belle Elmore communicate with H. H. C. or authori- 
ties at once. Serious trouble through your absence. Twenty-five dollars 

reward to any one communicating her whereabouts to ." I left that 

draft advertisement with Crippen. I left him somewhere about eight o'clock 
that evening. Next day, Saturday, the 9th July, I circulated a full descrip- 
tion of Mrs. Crippen as being a missing person. I sent that description 
to every police office in London, and I made various inquiries. 1 did not 
tell Crippen about that. I continued my inquiries on Sunday, the 10th, 
and I went through and considered the statement that had been made. 
On Monday, the llth, I went to Albion House, but I did not succeed in 
seeing Crippen or Miss Le Neve. I ascertained that he was not in the 
house at the time. I saw the two witnesses, Mr. Rylance and Mr. Long, 
and they showed me the two letters which they have produced. Not finding 
Crippen at Albion House, I went on to Hilldrop Crescent, on the same 
Monday, and I made a careful search of the house. Long came to the 
house after me, and while I was searching the house he handed me the draft 
advertisement, exhibit 41. I dug up portions of the garden, and I also 
examined the coal cellar. On that day I circulated a description of the 
prisoner Crippen and of Miss Le Neve, and I continued my inquiries. I 
forwarded the description to various ports in England and abroad. On 
Tuesday, 12th July, I made a further examination of the house, and also on 
the 13th, when, amongst other things, I again searched the coal cellar. 
The coal cellar had a brick floor. There was a very small quantity of coal 
there, and also a little rubbish, cuttings from small branches of trees, an old 
chandelier, and such things as that. I went down with Mitchell on to my 
knees, and probed about with a small poker which I had got out of the 
kitchen. 1 I found that the poker went in somewhat easily between the 
crevices of the bricks, and I managed to get one or two up, and then several 
others came up pretty easily. I then produced a spade from the garden and 
dug the clay that was immediately underneath the bricks. After digging 
down to about a depth of four spadefuls I came across what appeared to be 
human remains. After digging further, I sent for Dr. Marshall, the 
divisional surgeon of police in that district, and Sir Melville Macnaghten, 
the chief of the Criminal Investigation Department. Dr. Marshall came 
between five and six o'clock, and he saw a portion that I had unearthed. 
After I had procured assistance, we dug further, and Dr. Marshall came 
back later on. We left the remains where they were that night, without 
moving them; we covered them up, locked up the house, and left it in 
charge of two police officers. 

On the next day, the 14th, Dr. Marshall again attended, along with 
Mr. Pepper. Under their instructions the remains were removed from the 



40 l See Introduction. 



METROPOLITAN POLICE 

MURDER 

AND MUTILATION. 

Portraits, Description and Specimen of Handwriting of HAWLEY 
HARVEY CRIPPEN, alias Peter Crippen, alias Franckel; and 
ETHEL CLARA LE NEVE, alias Mrs. Crippen, and Neave. 



O 



r 
/*-*''/- 



Wanted for Ihe Murder of CORA CRIPPEN otherwise Belle 

Elmore: Kunifunde Mackamoliki : Martan^ar and Turner, on, 

or about, 2nd February tail. 

Description of Crippen. Age 0. height 6 ft, 9 or 4, 
eample.lon fresh, hair light brown, Inclined sandy, teanty, bald on 
lop, raiher long wanly moustache, wmcivhal tlrsftHlV, >**> bridge 
ofnatf raiher Itat. lake leeth. medium build. throw, hu feet outwardi 
When walking. Ma> be clean shavtn or wearing n heard and a..l.| 
rimmed apeclule-i, and may poaaikly ax-lime a win. 

Sometimes wears a Jacket suit, and a| other time* frock cool 
and ailk hai. Nay tie drnued In a brown jacket suit, brawn hat and 
aland up collar (SIM IS). 

Somewhat ilavenly appearance, wcanhUhal raiher at back of head 

Very plausible and quirt (poked, remarkably 'cool and collected 

Speak* French and probably German, Carrie* Firearm*. 

An American ri<lrn, and b> profession a 0elr. 

Hu lived in Nan York, Philadelphia, Si. toula, Detroit. Michigan, 
Coldwaler, and other parts of America. 

Hay obtain a poallion u isiiant to a docior or cy* apreialUt, 
or may pnteiae u an eye specialist, Drnliit.or open a builne.v* lor the 
trealmcal of deafness, advertising freel.v. 

H*. rrprcwnled Mftnyon's Rrmrilim, In various cities in America. 

Description of Ue Neve alias Neave. A short hand riler 
and lnil, age IT, height 6 fi. 6, complexion pale, hair light brown 
(irwy dye ame), urge ry or blue eyes, food leeih, nice lookina, 
rather IgnailnMtl now^ood shape), medium build, ple.wm. ladv-llfe 
appearance. Qukl, *ubdcd nwnnef, lalka quleily, looki Inlenily when 




i. ,..,,,.,. jp. 
u, C... lT 



. tf Londe* 

Drr.v. well, but quietly, and may wear a blue >rre costume (coal reaching ID hip*) trimmed hc.vy braid, about 
I Inch wide, round edge, over ifcouldrn and poakcli. Three large braid hultoni down front, aboui iie of n Itorin. three 
jinall oni-~ on each poekei, two on each cuff, wveral rown iif iliichina round bollom of nkirl : or a liuhl grey dindoo-'tripe 
coiiumr. same alyle a* above, but Irimmed grey molrr -ilk ln<icad or braid, and two roos of silk round bollom of akin; 
or a while prlnce robe will) gold cquln<: or a mole coloured striped coaiume with black molrr illk collar; or a dark 
vlemrote cllh costume, trimmed blark velvet callar: or a light hellglrapt drew. 

May have In her poavaalon and endeavour la dlipoae of me! a round a old brooch, with polnli radiating tlf-it/t from 
renire, each poi" 1 " b " L " " lllch '""* '"sniond In centre, raeh Mint ael brllllani., Ihe brooch In all beintf >riuhTly turger 
than a half~eron: an>l two single Mnr diamond ring*, and a diamond noil sapphire (or ruby) ring, >lonea ralHrr lr.-. 



Abpndc 
Tie 



Irui, and may have left, or will endeavour to leave the country, 
very enquiry 41 fthlpplnti Officer. Hotel*, and other likely place* and ciuae *hlpa to be watched 



iUo ta be (tvm U UM Mlrpoliun Pollea OOUw Maw cotl>n Yr4 London S W., or al any PolU. UUcn 

E. R. HENRY, 



Reproduction of Police Bill. 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Walter Dew 

cellar and put into a coffin and removed to the mortuary. In addition to 
the remains which we put into the coffin there were some articles which 
we put into a tray, one of these articlesi being a Hinde's curler. From 
that time, the 14th July, the remains were in charge of the doctors, so far 
as I know. I made some measurements of the cellar, at the request of 
Mr. Pepper. The distance from the surface of the brick floor to the upper 
portion of the remains was 8 inches; the depth of the brick was 3 inches, 
so that there was 5 inches of earth or clay. The bricks had been laid on 
the flat. Some of the remains were lower than others; the distance from 
the upper surface of the brick to these would be 12 inches. All the remains 
were found within a depth of 12 inches, including the brick within 9 inches 
of earth. 

When I was searching the house on the 14th I found a large quantity 
of ladies' clothes. In addition to the clothes which I found in the wardrobes 
and in the chest of drawers I found three baskets and one large trunk full 
of clothes. I also saw a quantity of fure, which I afterwards removed. 
There was a box underneath the bed in the first floor front bedroom. In 
that box I found two suits of pyjamas and one odd pair of pyjama trousers. 
Exhibit 48 is the odd pair of trousers. I did not find any jacket to corre- 
spond with those trousers, although I looked for it. The two suits and the 
odd trousers were made of the same sort of material, but not quite the 
same pattern. The pair of trousers was what might be called a single 
pattern the only one of that pattern. I also found exhibit 43, which is in 
Latin, and is a diploma of the Hospital College of Cleveland, Ohio. On 
the back I found the following endorsements : 

Presented and Registered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of King's by 
Hawley H. Crippen, as his authority to practice physic and surgery, this 8th day 
of July, 1900. Wm. J. Kaisu, Clerk (King's County Seal). Registered also in New 
York County P. Joseph Scully, Clerk of the City and County of New York. 
Bowling Green, N.Y. This will certify that the within diploma is from a 
reputable Medical College legally chartered under the laws of the State of Ohio. 
Given under my hand this December 3rd, 1892. J. N. M., M. D., Secretary, 
State Board of Health. Philadelphia, Pa., March 22nd, 1893. This diploma having 
been found to be a genuine document issued by a legally chartered college, is 
endorsed by order of the faculty of the Medical College of Philadelphia. A. R. 
Thomas, M.D. , Dean. 

It also certifies that Hawley Harvey Crippen is of good moral conduct, 
and has been instructed in a course of studies of medicine, and is well 
qualified to practise the art of medicine and kindred sciences. That is 
signed by W. H. Burridge, secretary; George Willey, president; and 
John C. Sanders, professor of obstetrics; N. Schneider, M.D., chirurgical 
professor; H. H. Baxter, professor of materia medica and medical clinics; 
S. A. Boynton, professor of physiology and microscopical anatomy; G. J. 
Jones, professor of the principle and practice of medicine; H. E. Biggar, 
professor of gynaecology; W. A. Phillips, professor of ophthalmics; Q. Y. 
Mover, a professor of histology; B. F. Gamber, professor of anatomy; E. 
B. Bauder, professor of medical jurisprudence; and Herbert C. Foote, pro- 
fessor of clinics. 

The two suits of pyjamas which are now shown me are the suits 
which I found in the same box as the odd pair of trousers. The necks of 

41 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Walter Dew 

the two jackets bear the name of the makers, " Shirt-makers, Jones 
Brothers (Holloway), Limited, Holloway, N." There is no maker's 
name on the trousers. In the garden I found a raised heap of earth 
covered with garden litter and empty flower pots. I caused that to be 
dug, and I found on the top there was a small quantity of loam or garden 
mould, and underneath 6 inches to 8 inches of clay, and below that again 
all loam. 

You saw the amount of clay that had been dug from the hole in the 
cellar 1 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is not that going a little too far? It 
is quite sufficient that somebody did find clay there. 

Examination continued As I have already mentioned, we circulated 
the description of Mrs. Crippen and made inquiries, but I did not take 
any further specific steps after 14th July. On 16th July a warrant for 
the arrest of the prisoner was granted at Bow Street, and it was entrusted 
to me for execution. Some days afterwards I received some information, 
and I proceeded to Canada. On 31st July I went on board the steamship 
" Montrose " at Father Point; she was. on the voyage from Antwerp to 
Quebec. Near the captain's cabin on the deck I saw the prisoner 
Crippen. He was clean shaven then. He was brought into the captain's 
cabin. I said, " Good morning, Dr. Crippen; I am Chief Inspector Dew." 
He said, " Good morning, Mr. Dew." I said, " You will be arrested for 
the murder and mutilation of your wife, Cora Crippen, in London, on or 
about the 2nd of February last." Chief Inspector McCarthy, of the 
Canadian Provincial Police, cautioned him, and he made no reply. Mr. 
McCarthy and Inspector Dennis then searched him in my presence. 
Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, which are the same articles of jewellery as 
he had shown me as being the ones which his wife had left behind her, 
were found on the lower part of his under-vest ; the two rings were sewn 
in and the two brooches were pinned in. Exhibit 12 was fastened to 
his under-vest with a pin. There were also two cards found upon him. 
I then left him and went to No. 5 cabin, where I found Miss Le Neve. 
In the same cabin I found some of Crippen's clothes. At that time Miss 
Le Neve was dressed as a boy, with her hair cut short. After speaking 
to her I returned to the captain's cabin, where Crippen was, and then 
he was taken from that to another cabin. Asi we were doing that he said, 
"I am not sorry; the anxiety has been too much." I then read the 
warrant in detail to him, but he did not make any reply. Mr. M'Carthy 
then put handcuffs on him, and I said, " We must put these on, because 
on a card found on you you have written that you intend jumping over- 
board." He replied, " I won't. I am more than satisfied, because the 
anxiety has been too awful." Exhibit 2 is one of the cards found upon 
him. It is a printed card, " E. Robinson & Co., Detroit, Mich. Presented 
by Mr. John Robinson," and on the back isi written, " I cannot stand 
the horror I go through every night any longer, as I see nothing bright 
ahead." Exhibit 3 is the other card, a piece of similar card, and on it 
is written, "Shall we wait until to-night about 10 or 11 o'clock? If 
not, what time? " In my opinion the handwriting on those cards is Dr. 
42 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Walter Dew 

Crippen's. In his portmanteau I found several other similar printed 
cards. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The cabin that Miss Le Neve was in was 
a two-berth cabin, which could be converted into a four-berth cabin. 
The cards to which I have spoken were found almost immediately after 
my first speaking to Dr. Oippen on the steamer. He was searched 
immediately. 

Examination continued Referring to the signature upon the manifest 
which is now shown to me, " Kobinson " is written backwards, but it 
seems to me to be Dr. Crippen's handwriting. While Dr. Crippen was 
being further searched he said, "How is Miss Le Neve?" I said, 
" Agitated, but I am doing all I can for her." He said, "It is only 
fair to say that she knows nothing about it; I never told her anything." 
On 20th August I left with the prisoner and Miss Le Neve in my custody 
for England on board the steamer " Majestic." On 21st August I again 
read to the prisoner the warrant charging him with the wilful murder of 
his wife, and in reply he said " Right." On 24th August, during the 
voyage, I was taking Crippen for deck exercise, and on that occasion he 
said, " I want to ask you a favour, but I will leave it till Friday." I 
said, " Tell me what it is now and I can answer as well now as on Friday." 
He said, " When you took me off the ship I did not see Miss Le Neve, 
and I don't know how things may go; they may go all right or they may 
go all wrong with me, and I may never see her again ; and I want to ask 
you if you will let me see her; but I won't speak to her. She has been 
my only comfort for the last three years." On 29th August, having 
arrived in England, he was formally charged at Bow Street Police Court. 
He did not make any reply. 

The furs (exhibits 13, 15, 16, and 18) were taken away by me from 
Hilldrop Crescent on 5th September. Those are some of the furs which 
I had seen on 14th July and other dates. They were in a large trunk in 
the first-floor back room. Inside the fur muff (exhibit 18) I found a pair 
of gloves (exhibit 19), size 6. I also found the fur muff (exhibit 20) at 
the same time. I found the photograph (exhibit 28) in one of the sitting- 
rooms, and I took possession of it on 5th September. The other photo- 
graph (exhibit 29) was sent to me by one of the witnesses. I saw the 
photograph of Mr. Bruce Miller (exhibit 72) several times in the top 
bedroom at 39 Hilldrop Crescent. I am not quite sure where the other 
photograph of Mr. Bruce Miller (exhibit 73) was found, but it was found 
in the house somewhere. When the furniture was removed all the photo- 
graphs were retained and put in one corner. On 10th September I again 
went to 39 Hilldrop Crescent and took possession of the ermine muff and 
necklet (exhibit 59). On 28th September I went to Albion House, and 
I took from a wooden box there the ermine jacket and white fur jacket 
(exhibits 57 and 58). 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You do not want this in great detail because 

Mr. Tobin has told us most frankly and properly that he does not dispute 

that Miss Le Neve did wear furs which were the property of Mrs. Crippen. 

Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I do not think it is suggested that she 

wore these. 

43 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Walter Dew 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE She wore some of them; that is sufficient. 

(To the Witness) I suppose you probed with the poker between the 
bricks? That is so. 

"Was there any mortar between the bricks then or not? It could not 
be described as mortar; it had been very closely packed down, and was 
covered with coal dust and that sort of thing. I saw no mortar, and I 
do not think that any had been used. The clay would keep the bricks 
very firm. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN It was about ten o'clock on Friday, 
8th July, when I went to the Hilldrop Crescent house and saw Miss Le 
Neve. I then went on to Albion House, and I saw Dr. Crippen very 
shortly before ten. I was with Miss Le Neve between the time I arrived 
at Hilldrop Crescent and the time I arrived at Albion House; she had no 
opportunity of communicating in any way with Dr. Crippen during that 
time. My visit to Hilldrop Crescent was a surprise visit to Miss Le Neve, 
as was also my visit to Albion House, so far as Dr. Crippen was concerned. 
When I arrived at Albion House Miss Le Neve volunteered to go and find 
Crippen. She was with him for two or three minutes, quite a short space 
of time. At our interview I put a number of questions to him and he 
answered every one of them quite readily. I suggested going with him to 
the house and to go over it, and he readily agreed. 

He did not show the smallest reluctance? None at all. I think it 
would be between six and seven in the evening when we arrived at the 
Hilldrop Crescent house. Dr. Crippen went with me into every room, 
and he did not attempt to conceal anything. I said that I should like 
to go into the cellar, and he came with me. 

No difficulty whatever about it? No. 

Did he show the smallest trace of worry or anxiety as to going into 
the cellar with you? He was perfectly cool. I should think that we 
would stay in the cellar for about a couple of minutes. It is a very dark 
cellar. It would be approximately in the middle of the floor that I 
afterwards found the remains. I do not think there was any coal lying 
about the floor at the part where I found the remains ; I think the coal 
was at the side of the cellar. 

The part where the remains were subsequently found was, as far as 
you remember, not covered by coal at all? No, except dust, and perhaps 
a small portion of coal, but not much. I suppose I was with Dr. Crippen 
in the house for about an hour or an hour and a half. 

At that time, of course, you were suspicious, although you had not 
sufficient ground to go upon for arrest? Was that not your state of 
mind? Well, I was trying to keep a perfectly clear mind. 

I am sure of that, but at the same time you would naturally be 
suspicious? I was not satisfied. 

And you indicated that to him? I told him so. I told him that I 
should have to find his wife. 

Did you say, " You must find your wife," or " I must find your wife " ? 
" I shall have to find her." He said, " I will do all I can to find her." 

Did he then in any way indicate alarm or fright, or anything of that 
kind? No, he did not. I went next into the cellar on Monday, the llth, 
44 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Walter Dew 

and I looked round and tested the bricks with the heel of my boot. That 
is all I did, except to look at the floor as far as I could with a candle. I 
would spend two or three minutes in the cellar that day. I pushed the 
bricks with my heel to see if they were loose, but I did not find anything 
to arouse my suspicions. On an ordinary examination there was nothing 
to indicate to my eye or to my foot that the cellar floor had been disturbed 
for years; there was nothing to indicate that there was anything wrong. 

1 went back again on the Tuesday and looked all round, examined the 
rubbish and moved it, and probably tapped it with my foot, but there 
was nothing to notice. My examination on the Tuesday lasted about the 
same time as the one on the Monday. On the Wednesday I made a further 
examination with a small poker. I went down on my hands and knees and 
probed all round the cellar with the poker, and at last I found the place 
where the remains were. I found loose bricks, and on digging up with a 
spade I found the remains. The remains were what might be called close 
packed, heavily packed, with clay above them to a depth of 5 inches. 

They were rammed in? Yes, rammed in, but looser there than in 
other parts of the cellar where there were no remains. I would describe 
the remains as close packed with clay. The cellar wasi 3 yards long by 

2 yards 3 inches wide; the length of the remains was 4 feet 1 inch, and the 
greatest width 20 inches. It was a fairly regular oblong area. The remains 
were mixed altogether, packed close together in a mass extending over that 
area. There was lime mixed up with the remains. Of course, as we 
dug we may have taken some of the lime off the clay. 

Take a bit of flesh there and another bit of flesh below it, might there 
have been lime between a sprinkling of lime, then some remains, then 
another sprinkling of lime, and then more remains? No, there was one 
mass. There would be nothing actually in between ; it would all be either 
at the bottom or at the side. So far as I could judge, the lime was all 
round the remains, over them, under them, and at the side of them, but 
not mixed up with them in the sense of layers. There were different bits 
of skin of different sizes found amongst the remains. 

Mixed up and folded over in parts, jumbled up all together? All 
together ; this huge mass of flesh was all together. 

Were any parts of those bits of skin folded over? I cannot say. It 
was impossible for me to make such a close examination as that. I found 
the first lot of remains about five o'clock, and then I sent for Dr. Marshall. 
They remained there till he came, but I had not taken up much then. 

Then when Dr. Marshall came the remains were taken out? Oh, no, 
not touched at all. I sent for two police officers with spades and other 
implements, and we then dug completely round this mass of flesh and 
uncovered it. We covered that up about twelve o'clock midnight, and 
locked the cellar door; we left two police officers in charge and left the 
house. We did not touch the remains at all as far as we could help. 
We laid some boards over the hole that we had made. Mr. Pepper and 
Dr. Marshall came about eleven o'clock next day, and they stayed till the 
remains were removed by an undertaker. They made some examination of 
them, and then about two o'clock the remains were placed in a shell and 
removed to the mortuary, and passed out of my care entirely. 

* 45 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Walter Dew 



I boarded the " Montrose " at Father Point about 8.30 in the morning 
of 31st July. Passengers by that boat would not disembark there in 
ordinary course, and it would be against the regulations for the cargo to 
be landed. Father Point is about twelve hours on this side of Quebec for 
a vessel like the " Montrose." It all depends on how long they are delayed 
at the quarantine station before they reach Quebec. It took us sixteen 
hours, as we were delayed. The quarantine station is about 12 or 14 miles 
off Quebec. A pilot must always be taken on board at Father Point for 
vessels going up to Quebec. 

The two cards that have been read were found on Crippen shortly after 
I got on board. I am absolutely satisfied that Crippen had no opportunity 
of writing those cards after I had spoken to him. One of the cards has 
on the back of it, "I cannot stand the horror I go through every night 
any longer, and, as I see nothing bright ahead, and money has come to 
an end, I have made up my mind to jump overboard to-night. I know 
I have spoilt your life, but I hope some day you can learn to forgive me ; 
with best words of love, your H." That is written in his handwriting, 
as I believe. As far as I know, Miss Le Neve and Crippen occupied the 
earn cabin the whole way across. 

Therefore if the information on that card, " I cannot stand the horror, 
I have made up my mind to jump overboard," was intended for Miss Le 
Neve, really there was no need to put it in writing? I do not know. During 
the progress of this case I made inquiries as to whether Mrs. Crippen (Belle 
Elmore) had been earning money on the music hall stage or otherwise 
during the last few years, and I found that she had earned money, but not 
much, I should think. During the last four years she earned very little 
indeed. So far as I can understand, Dr. Crippen was really the bread- 
winner. 

Did you find out that Belle Elmore was never regularly on the music 
hall stage or any other stage in London? She was not regarded as a 
" star." I found that she had been at various music halls and variety halls, 
in Bristol, and so on principally local, but not so much in the last three 
or four years. 

I have had charge of this case since 30th June. I have not made 
any inquiries as to whether Crippen owed debts when he left this country, 
and I do not think he did. 

Re-examined by Mr. MUIR When I interviewed Dr. Crippen on 8th 
July at Albion House and at Hilldrop Crescent he appeared to be perfectly 
calm, and on the voyage from Canada to this country he was perfectly 
cool and collected. He conversed with me on various subjects other than 
this case. He did not appear to be at all dejected. There was no difference 
in his manner after his arrest from what it was before his arrest. The 
hole in the cellar where the earth was loose was practically limited to the 
space occupied by the remains. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Round the hole in which the remains were 
the earth was very firm, as if it had never been disturbed. 

When you found the bricks were loose, or could be removed without 
difficulty, did you happen to notice whether that extended over the whole 
area? Oh, no. I had previously tested round the sides of the cellar and 
46 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Walter Dew 

at each end, and it was when I came to this particular spot that I found 
those bricks were loose. The others were quite firm. In my judgment, 
the area of loose bricks about corresponded with the hole. 

ALBERT FRANK LEVERTON, examined by Mr. MUIR I am an under- 
taker. I attended with a shell and coffin at the cellar at 39 Hilldrop Crescent 
on 14th July. I did not see the remains put into the shell. I screwed the 
shell down myself and took it to the mortuary, and left it there screwed 
down. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLY JENKINS Was there earth all over the 
remains? I did not have sufficient opportunity to examine the remains to 
see what they were. Before the magistrate I said I saw some earth with the 
remains, what little I saw of them. 

I do not suggest that you thoroughly examined them, but you did see 
some earth mixed up with the remains? Yes. I could not tell how the 
remains were put into the coffin, whether by hand or by spade. 

DANIEL GOOCH, examined by Mr. MUIR I am police constable 501 of 
the " Y " Division. On 13th July I assisted in digging in a cellar at 39 
Hilldrop Crescent, and on the 14th, with another constable named Martin, 
I put the remains into a shell. We used nothing but our hands in doing so. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS The floor of the cellar was 
laid with bricks. There was a very bad smell coming from the remains, 
which were in a number of small pieces. 

Dr. AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER, examined by Mr. Mum I am a Master 
in Surgery at the London University and a Fellow of the Royal College 
of Surgeons. I am consulting surgeon at St. Mary's Hospital. I have 
been in active practice as a surgeon for about thirty-five years. On 14th 
July of this year I went to 39 Hilldrop Crescent with Chief Inspector Dew, 
and I met Dr. Marshall there. In the cellar I found that part of the floor 
had been taken up, and in a hole in the ground I saw what appeared to 
be animal remains, including in the word " animal," human. I looked 
at the soil and saw that it was composed partly of loam and partly of clay 
with some lime mixed in it. I also found some articles in the hole; some 
of these were taken from the hole and put on a tray. Among them there 
was a tuft of dark brown hair in a Hinde's curler. Before it was stretched 
out it appeared to be 3| inches, long. The natural colour of the hair 
was dark brown ; the part in the curler showed gradations of bleaching. I 
also found a small piece of fair hair lying in a large handkerchief, what 
is called a man's size, with no identification mark on it. Two corners 
were tied in a reef knot; it was torn through opposite the knot, where 
it was very much decayed. There were also two small pieces of cloth of 
a reddish brown colour and a portion of a woman's undervest with six 
buttons, one of which was fastened. It had a lace collar and armlets. 
These articles were thickly encrusted with cement-like material. There 
was also a large piece of flesh, composed of skin, fat, and muscle. That 
came from the thigh and lower part of the buttock. 

Of a human being? Oh, yes. There was also a piece of coarse 

47 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Dr. Pepper 



string-like material, which is of no importance. Those articles were placed 
on a tray. I instructed the police as to what should be done with the 
remaining portion of the remains, and it was done in my presence. I 
examined the contents of the shell at the mortuary next day. I found that 
all the bones had been removed, the head was missing, and the limbs 
were missing, except that piece of the thigh, and another piece which very 
likely came from the thigh, but there was no bone or part of a bone. On 
15th July I placed in five jars some of the organs that were found. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We ought to have, and I think I should 
like to have it now, the organs which were found? The viscera of the chest 
and abdomen, in one piece, that is, the heart, the lungs, the lower 2 inches 
of the windpipe, the gullet, the liver, the kidneys, spleen, stomach, 
pancreas. 

Then except the organs of generation the internal organs were prac- 
tically all the organs of the body? Yes. 

Examination continued On the 15th July I found a piece of skin 
measuring 11 inches by 9 inches with some fat attached to it. That was 
in addition to the two pieces I have spoken of before. That piece came 
from the upper part of the abdomen and lower part of the chest. I found 
another piece of skin, 7 inches by 6 inches, which came from the lower 
part, the front portion of the abdomen. There was a mark upon that 
piece which attracted my attention, and I afterwards examined it with 
particularity. I spent several hours examining it. 

In your opinion, as the result of that examination, what was that 
mark? It was the mark of a scar, a little over 4 inches in length. That 
scar would have been visible upon the piece of skin. When that piece 
was in position on the human body in my opinion it was in the middle 
line in front, it may have been a little to the left; it began just above 
the pubes and extended for 4 inches or a little over. The whole scar 
was complete. There was a piece of flesh beyond it. It was quite an 
old scar. There was no trace of any genitals at all, or any certain anatomi- 
cal indication of sex. There was hair on that piece of flesh in my 
opinion pubic hair. I also found a portion of a woman's woollen or 
cotton combinations. At my casual examination I could not tell whether 
it was woollen or cotton, but I have since examined it with the microscope, 
and I have found that it was cotton. There was lace on the armlets and 
on the front. I also found portions of a pyjama jacket. The jar which 
is now produced contains the portion of the pyjama jacket with the collar 
on, and it has a label, " Shirtmakers, Jones Brothers, Holloway, Limited, 
Holloway, N." On referring to the collars of the jackets of the two suits 
of pyjamas already produced I find that the labels are exactly the same. 
The separate piece in the jar is the front part of the pyjama jacket with 
the button on. On referring to the buttons on the jacket which have 
been already produced, I find that they are the same make, and I should 
think they would be the same size, only this has shrunken somewhat in 
pressure and manipulation. The other jar which is produced contains a 
portion of a sleeve of the pyjama jacket. 

Having examined the manner in which the viscera have been extracted 
from that body, are you able to say whether it was done by a skilled 
person or not? Yes, it must have been. 
48 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dp. Pepper 

You mean the extraction from the body? The removal of the viscera 
from the body. It has been done by a person skilled in removing viscera. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is dissection, I suppose? Dissection. 

Of human beings? Well, I would not like to go so far as that, but 
certainly in evisceration of animals. There is no cut or tear in any part 
except where it was necessary for the removal. It was removed all in one 
piece. All the organs I have described were connected together, and the 
diaphragm or the septum between the chest and abdomen had been cut 
round. 

Examination continued In my opinion that would certainly require 
skill. There were no organs of generation there at all. It is quite 
likely that some of them may have been removed in life. The scar which 
I saw would be in that position if an operation was performed for the 
purpose of removing some of the organs of generation the pelvic organs, 
the ovaries or the uterus, or all combined. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The scar is in a place which corresponds 
with an operation for the removal of the ovaries. 

Examination continued I formed the opinion that those remains had 
been buried from four to eight months. In forming that opinion I took 
into consideration the place where they were buried, the surrounding 
materials, the lime and the earth, and the depth at which they were buried. 
In my opinion they were buried very shortly after death. 

In your opinion is it possible that those remains could have been 
buried there before 21st September, 1905 1 1 Oh, no, absolutely impossible. 
I put the heart, stomach, a portion of liver, and one kidney into a jar. 
The other kidney was dissected, but it was left in the body. In a second 
jar I put the clothes that I have spoken of. In a third jar I put the 
hair in the metal curler, the tuft of hair found in the handkerchief, the 
handkerchief, some portions of woody fibre, and a portion of the undervest 
which I have spoken to as being a female garment. In a fourth jar I put 
the arm-piece of the broad striped flannelette material of the pyjama. In 
a fifth jar I put the right posterior portion of the pyjama with a label on, 
and the piece with the button. The longest hairs that were found were 
8 inches, and the shortest were 2 inches, and, of course, there were 
intermediate lengths. Being of that length, and being partly bleached, 
the hair was that of a woman. The dark brown part of the hair was 
the hair of the root. The roots were present. Exhibit 44 is the part of 
hair that was placed by me in the third jar. It is darker now than it was 
when I first saw it. Exhibit 45 is the portion of the hair that I found 
in the handkerchief. I think it is slightly darker now than it was then. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The fact of its having got darker is due, 
I think, partly to the drying and partly to being more compressed together, 
and then possibly the bleaching effect has gone off somewhat. 

Examination continued On 5th August, at St. Mary's Hospital, I 
examined the hair in the Hinde's curler, exhibit 46. I found that the 
greater part was from 2 inches to 3 inches long. The longest part was 
6 inches long. The colour was dark brown, shading off to light brown. 
I think it is somewhat darker than it was when I examined it. I ex- 

1 The date when Crippen became tenant of the house. ED. 

49 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Pepper 

amined two loose hairs at the mortuary on 8th August ; they were lying 
loose on a part of the abdominal wall. One was 5 inches long, and the 
other was 8 inciies; they were of the same colour as the other hair that I 
had seen, dark brown. In my opinion these were a woman's hairs. On 
27th August I examined exhibit 47, which is some more hair in a Hinde's 
curler. It is from 2 inches to 4 inches in length, and in my opinion it 
is the same sort of hair as the other as to colour, and as to being a 
woman's hair. I examined twenty hairs, which I believe to be pubio 
hairs; some were still fixed to the skin, while others were free. They 
were dark brown in colour, like the dark part of the hair of No. 1 specimen, 
exhibit 44. They were from J inch to 1 inch in length; they showed the 
rootsi at one end, and the other end tapered off. In all the other speci- 
mens the hairs, of course, had been cut. 

I found the stomach, the kidneys, the heart, the liver, and the 
pancreas all to be healthy, as far as one could tell. There was no sign 
of disease in any one of those organs, or anything to account for death, 
so far as looking at it is concerned. The spleen was very soft, as one 
would expect, from decomposition, but nothing else was detectable in it 
as being wrong. The intestines were healthy, as were also the lungs, 
which were more advanced in decomposition than the other organs, except 
the spleen. There was nothing to show disease or to account for death ; 
there was no consolidation and no sign of there having been pleurisy no 
marks on the surface. From the remains that I examined I would say 
that the person was stout when in life. I have seen the photographs, 
exhibits 28 and 29. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I hardly think you need go into all that. 

Examination continued The kidneys were in an exceedingly good state 
of preservation. On 9th September I was present at St. Mary's Hospital 
when a piece of the skin bearing the mark which I say is an old scar was 
removed for microscopical examination, and I was 1 present when that piece 
was microscopically examined on 13th September by Dr. Spilsbury. I 
also examined it myself; the examination I made quite corroborated my 
previous opinion. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I had not the slightest doubt, without 
examining it with the microscope, that it was the scar of an old wound, 
and that was confirmed by the microscopical examination. 

Examination continued The person in life would be an adult, young 
or middle-aged. I did not find anything to account for death in anything 
that I examined among those remains. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN Taking a mass 1 of human remains by 
themselves without anything else like hair in Hinde's curlers, and so on 
it is quite impossible to tell the sex, except upon anatomical grounds. There 
are no anatomical grounds in this case to enable me to say with certainty 
the sex. 

As to the great dexterity you have already told us that was required 
to remove these organs in the way they were removed, it would require a 
really practised hand and eye, would it not? Certainly. 

A man frequently accustomed to dissect bodies or to conduct post- 
mortem examinations, or matters of that kind? No, a person who had 
50 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dp. Pepper 

previously done it, but not necessarily continuously. If a person had once 
learned how to do it he could do it. 

Suppose a student in the hospitals learnt it, and then there was a long 
lapse of time afterwards fifteen years or so surely the hand and eye have 
to be pretty well accustomed? I think he could do it quite as well after 
ten years as he could at the time. It is not a minute dissection ; it is a 
particular kind of work. I cannot pledge my memory as to when I was 
first asked to express an opinion as to how long those remains had been 
in {he ground. On loth July I formed the opinion as to the length of time 
of burial. Mr. Dew was at Hill drop Crescent when I went there on 14th 
July. I am not sure that he told me that the woman was said to have 
disappeared about 15th February of that year; he may have done so, but 
I do not remember. At any rate, I would hear that very soon after, if not 
on the 14th. 

I suppose it is quite beyond the reach of science to determine with 
accuracy the period of death from the process of putrefaction? Yes. 

And is this true, too, that two different bodies buried in the same soil 
and under apparently similar conditions frequently present such differences 
as to baffle all attempts at generalisation? Yes. 

Would putrefaction be retarded in the case of human remains buried, 
closely packed in clay and lime, 5 inches of such stuff above them, and a 
depth of 3 inches? 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Take the general question first; would 
lime or clay retard putrefaction? It depends. There are two kinds of 
decomposition taking place in dead bodies one where it is freely exposed 
to the air and warmth, and the other where it is damp and largely excluded 
from the air, and that is what happened in this case. 

Taking it as it was in the ground, would lime and clay retard either 
form of putrefaction? It would retard the common form of putrefaction, 
but the presence of damp clay would favour the change which happened in 
this case. It would not be putrefaction in the ordinary sense. It is a 
peculiar change which takes place; the tissues 1 become converted into a kind 
of soap, the technical name of which is adipocere. 

Cross-examination continued Buried in clay, adipocere would be 
created more quickly and ordinary putrefaction would be retarded. Taking 
a person of Mrs. Crippen's age and build, I should say that the normal 
weight of the kidney of a woman like that would vary from 3 to 4 ounces. 
In point of fact, the weight of the kidney in this case was, I think, 2f 
ounces. 

The normal weight would be 4 ounces, and you think it was 2| ounces. 
What would that be due to? That would be due largely to removal of 
moisture from the kidney desiccation. 

Was there any putrefaction of the kidney? There wasi some change 
in the kidney; I do not want to use the word " putrefaction." I do not 
agree that there was. ordinary putrefaction ; there was very decided forma- 
tion of adipocere. 

With regard to the piece of skin 7 inches by 6 inches, which is now 
shown to you in the jar produced I want two points about that, whether 
it came from the abdomen, as your opinion ie, and whether the mark on 

51 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Pepper 

it is a scar or not. Before you formed an opinion even that the mark on 
that piece of skin was a scar, had you already heard that Mrs. Crippen had 
had an operation? Certainly. I do not remember when it was that I first 
heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation. I would be quite ready to 
admit that it was within a week after I had first seen the remains, but I do 
not remember the time. 

If that scar came from the lower part of the abdomen of somebody, 
you are satisfied in your opinion, as. I understand, that the navel waa 
once upon that piece of skin? I believe it would have been. 

Is it not the case that, running at right angles to the navel, at right 
angles to the perpendicular line up the stomach, there are what are called 
tendinous intersections 1 Yes. 

Are those white fibres at right angles to the navel? Yes. 

Are there also I am not talking now of that piece of skin in particular 
ordinary tendinous intersections at right angles to the perpendicular line 
up the stomach on a level with the bottom of the breast bone? Yes. There 
are also three tendinous intersections at right angles between those two 
points, the navel and the bottom of the breast bone. There may also be 
tendinous intersections a little below the navel, but that varies very much. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What does the word " tendinous " mean 
colour, or what? Structure. A tendon is 1 what is commonly called a leader 
or guide. There are two long muscles reaching from the chest to the pelvis 
two straight muscles ; and to give additional strength and support they 
are divided by these three tendinous intersections. It is the muscle inter- 
sected by transverse tendons. 

Cross-examination continued You say that in your opinion, if that 
does come from the lower part of somebody's abdomen, the navel must 
have been on it? The navel, in my opinion, was originally on this piece of 
skin, but it is possible, of course, that it was 1 not. 

Therefore it must have been removed from that piece of skin, if your 
opinion is Bright? Yes. 

Is there any trace whatever there of the tendinous intersections of 
which I have spoken running at right angles to the navel? No. I point 
out to the jury where on that piece of skin I think the navel originally was 
at the top of the scar. I ought to say that that scar isi not so long as the 
wound of the operation would have been. 

It is at the top of what I may call a horse- shoe depression? Yes, if 
you can call it so. 

[The witness pointed out to the jury the place where the navel was, 
what had been called the top of the horse-shoe depression.] 

Would you not expect to find, at right angles to what you think was 
originally the site of the navel, the tendinous 1 intersections? No; you 
might not find that at all, because the tendinous intersection does not involve 
the skin; it only involves the muscles underneath, and there the muscles 
had been cut away. I should not see them, it wants turning upside down 
to answer this question. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Your answer is that you would not expect 
to find it where Mr. Tobin has 1 pointed out? That is so. 

Now, turn it upside down on the tray, and let us know what you say? 
I say that the muscle is cut across lower than the skin, and the tendinous 
52 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. Pepper 

intersection is only in the muscle; therefore this might have been cut across 
at the level, or just immediately above the navel, without showing that 
tendinous intersection. 

Your answer is that you would not of necessity find the tendinoua 
intersections in that piece of flesh? That is so. 

Cross-examination continued The linea alba (the white line) is the 
vertical line from the chest running down to the pubic bone. The linea 
alba is not on the surface of the skin ; the linea alba indicates where the 
tendons underneath are joined. 

Is the linea alba a thing that, looking at a man's chest, you see with 
your eye? You never see it on the chest. 

It is inside; it is underneath the surface? There is a line running 
down the centre ; you always see a slight line there. 

But underneath the surface of the skin that line is white, and it ia 
called the linea alba? Certainly, where the tendons join. 

Is there not enough there for the linea alba to exist, if really that does 
come from the lower part of the abdomen? No, because there is only 
muscle on one side there. 

Very great dexterity would be required to remove the peritoneum, the 
lining of the cavity right inside? I never saw any one attempt to remove 
it. 

Is there any trace of the peritoneum there? No, certainly not. 

Then it must have been removed? Certainly, but not removed by 
itself. The body has been cut up, and it has been taken out evenly in the 
whole thickness with considerable quantities left behind, as shown by this 
preparation. 

That would be a good indication of whether that piece of skin really 
came from the lower part of somebody's abdomen? You mean if it was 
there? 

Yes? I very much doubt if you would recognise it clearly in this con- 
dition ; but, assuming that you could see it, of course it would tell you 
that it was from the abdomen. 

I suppose you have looked to see whether you can see it ? Certainly. 

If it is not there it must have been removed? It was removed during 
the cutting up of the body. 

On that piece of skin is there some hair visible? Yes. 

In your examination-in-chief you expressed the opinion that those 
were pubic hairs? Yes. They are on the right side only of the piece of 
kin, taking the skin as on the body. 

If those are pubic hairs, then those on the left side must have fallen 
out? Yes. 

If they have fallen out on the left side there may have been hairs 
over other portions of that piece of skin that have also fallen out? 
Certainly. 

Therefore it may have been all more or less covered with hair at one 
time; one cannot tell with certainty, can one? No; there is only one 
place where pubic hairs are found in this specimen, and that is at the 
bottom in a line. 

53 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

DP. Pepper 

Is the removal of the navel a usual operation? It is very common 
indeed. 

If the navel had once been removed from that piece of skin it goes 
without saying that that mark is. a scar. How many times did you ex- 
amine that piece of skin before you came to the conclusion that it was 
a scar? I came to the conclusion immediately at least within quarter 
to half an hour on my first examination. I have not the slightest doubt 
that it was a scar. 

Did you ever come to that conclusion before you examined it with Dr. 
Marshall on 8th August? That is the time I am speaking of. 

The 8th August was the first time you came to the conclusion that it 
was a scar? That is so. 

Before that you had heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation 
there? Yes. 

How many times had you examined that piece of skin before 8th 
August? Once before, casually; I had not completed my examination. 

On 14th July how long were you looking at the remains? Three 
hours? Oh, no. I spent two hours and three-quarters in the house, and 
that included the examination of house and garden. I should say that I 
did not spend more than half an hour looking at the remains. I com- 
menced the examination of the remains, and found it was impossible to 
finish the examination there. 

On 15th July did you and Dr. Marshall at the mortuary examine the 
remains? Yes, I think for two hours and three-quarters or three hours. 

On that occasion you did not come to the conclusion that it was 
a scar? I did not see it; I did not see the mark. I have no doubt I 
saw that piece of skin with other pieces, but I did not see this mark on 
it, and therefore the question of scar did not arise then. 

Was it about 18th July that you heard of the operation? I cannot 
remember when I heard of it. I do not agree that the condition of that 
piece of skin makes it very difficult to say whether that mark is a scar at 
all. Looking at the horse-shoe depression, as we have called it, the left 
limb of that so-called horse-shoe is undoubtedly due to a folding of the 
skin after death. The scar begins at the lower part where it is cut 
across, and it ends quite definitely at that part where I point to. It 
is practically straight, slightly curving at the upper part. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is that as high as the navel would have 
been, or not as high, or above it? The navel varies so exceedingly. Being 
4 inches, one might easily allow an inch for contraction, and that would 
take it to 5 1 inches. 

What would be the distance between the navel and the pubic bone? I 
do not know the stoutness of the woman or the age of the woman, and 
it depends what part you are starting from whether you start from 
the surface or the bone. When I was cross-examined before the magis- 
trate I was definitely asked with regard to the starting point of the bone 
not the skin. 

Cross-examination continued As I have already said, one limb of the 
so-called horse-shoe was due to a folding of the skin after death. In my 
54 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

DP. Pepper 

opinion it is quite impossible that the other limb of that horse-shoe was 
equally caused by a folding of the skin after death. 

The limb of the horse-shoe that you admit is due to a fold shows a 
well-defined depression or groove, does it not? Ye. 

Showing that there must have been considerable pressure or weight 
above it from the earth and so on? There must have been some or even 
the weight of the exhibit itself would be sufficient to do it. You can see 
definitely here where the left limb of the horse-shoe forming the top part 
runs distinctly into the straight line of the scar. The scar and what is 
called the depression are not due to the same cause. The left limb of the 
horse-shoe is due to the fold, and the right limb of the horse-shoe in my 
opinion is due to an operation. The left limb of what is called the horse- 
shoe and the curve of the horse-shoe the convexity form entirely one 
line. It runs into this straight line which I say is a scar. 

I am very sorry, but I must ask you to look at it again ? It is quite 
stereotyped in my mind. 

But I want you to look at it with me. [The witness went down into 
the well of the Court.] There is a depression continuously right round 
the area of the depression, or 'So-called horse-shoe a continuous depression? 
Quite so. The scar is not part of the so-called horse-shoe. My con- 
tention is that the scar runs on the right side, nearly straight, and that 
the left limb and the curve of the so-called horse-shoe are formed by the 
fold. 

You have examined that, of course, under a microscope? I have 
examined a small piece that was cut out of the centre of what I say is 
the scar. 

You have told me that in your opinion the right side of the depression, 
the straighter line, is not due to pressure. Now, I ask you whether you 
have examined the right side with the microscope? Certainly. 

Are there on that right side of the so-called horse shoe at intervals 
little groups of transverse lines, four lines in each, at regular intervals? 
On the left side. 

No, on the right limb of the so-called horse-shoe? I know, but on 
the left side of the right limb. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE On the left side of what you call the 
scar? Yes. 

Cross-examination- conttmtfd Are there marks in the area there of 
what you consider to be a scar? Yes, on the left side. 

Little groups consisting of four lines in each? That is right on the 
left side not on the right side. 

But those are in the area of the scar? Yes. 

Do they in part go beyond the area of the so-called scar? A little. 

There were found, were there not, some bits of a woman's combina- 
tions, or woman's underclothing, and some bits of a vest made of elastic 
material? Yes. 

Have you ascertained whether or not those little groups of four lines 
in each, which you admit are partly in the area of the so-called scar and 
partly outside it, are exactly similar to the pattern of the elastic material ? 

55 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Pepper 

I think in the vest the ribbing is wider, but if you show me the vest I 
can tell you. 

Take jar No. 2, which contains the combinations. Have you com- 
pared the pattern of the stuff composing these combinations with these 
groups of four lines each on the area of the scar and travelling beyond it? 
No, I have not. 

Then you cannot say whether or not the patterns precisely correspond? 
No, I cannot. 

If they do, that would be a clear indication that those marks, at any 
rate, are caused by the pressure of the materials? They might on the 
left side, but not on the right. The scar is not a line it is | inch wide 
at the lower part. The marks you are speaking of in groups are on the 
left side of that. 

I understood you to say that those marks were in the area of the so- 
called scar, and travelled outside it on one side? I should say that they 
do not go beyond the area of the scar. I have examined with the micro- 
scope a piece which was cut, and I say that those groups of lines do not go 
outside. 

That piece of skin has been examined by a medical gentleman on 
behalf of the defence for some hours, and on several occasions, has it not? 
Certainly. 

Are you prepared to say whether or not those groups of four lines 
travel and are within the area of the so-called scar? Certainly. 

Are you prepared to say whether they are outside it? I think not. 

You think not, but you have never examined it under the microscope? 
I am looking at it now, and I see marks distinctly, and the end of the 
marks and the scar; the marks are quite distinct here now, and I see that 
they end, or apparently end, at the margin of the scar. 

You are examining it now with your eyes, not with the microscope? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That we can see for ourselves, Mr. Tobin. 

Cross-examination continued Those groups of four lines each may 
have been caused by the pressure of a fabric, but not on the right side. 
There are hundreds of lines there, as it were, showing the marking of the 
scar. 

Can you attribute those little groups of four lines each to anything 
else except the pressure of the fabric? No, I should think that is the 
most likely explanation, but the whole scar is fibrillated. 

Supposing, as you think, one limb is due to folding, and the other 
side of the depression is due to an operation, and, therefore, a scar, as you 
think, would you not expect that if a piece was cut across the folded 
depression and a piece cut across the area of the so-called scar, the cut 
edges of the piece cut from the so-called scar would be different from 
the cut edges of the piece of the groove where there never had been a scar 
at all? Not necessarily, because the folding over would attenuate the 
skin at that part the continued pressure of it. 

As a matter of fact, both limbs of the so-called horse-shoe were cut 
across on 9th September? Yes, but I am not quite certain of the date. 
It was under my instructions that they were cut across. It is quite likely 
that the cut edges of the skin so cut from both limbs presented exactly 
the same appearance. 
66 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dp. Pepper 

Do you know that on the same date, 9th September, a piece was cut 
right across the area of the so-called scar, and extending beyond the so-called 
scar on each side, and handed to Dr. Spilsbury? Yes. My instructions 
were that it should be done in that way. 

Now, would you not expect the cut edges of that piece that were 
originally within the scar to be different in appearance from the cut edges 
of the skin just outside the area of the so-called scar on each side? Not 
necessarily, because the superficial area of the skin has entirely gone, and 
this has become hardened and horny; the whole skin on the surface is 
almost like leather now. I examined, both with the naked eye and the 
microscope, that bit of skin so cut by my directions across and beyond the 
area of the so-called scar. 

Do you agree that there was no difference whatever in size, number, 
or arrangement of the fibres in the part immediately below the surface, 
either within the area of the scar or outside it? Yes, and in the part which 
I say was the scar the fibres are denser they are more densely placed 
than the fibres forming the skin. A very important point is that there 
were glands of the skin still remaining in the skin on each side of the scar ; 
there were no remains of glands in the part which I say is the scar. 

Would not an operation cause an alteration in the size, number, and 
arrangement of the fibres in the part immediately below the surface? 
Not necessarily. What operation are you speaking of? 

I am speaking of an operation in the abdomen of a woman, a wound 
going through the entire wall of the abdomen? Then they might unite 
very accurately indeed, so that afterwards 1 you could not tell really that 
an operation had been done except from the line of the scar. 

It is a very unusual thing for them to unite very accurately? Not 
at all. 

Is it not generally the case that after an operation there is more or less 
apposition afterwards of the fibres? There must be almost invariably some 
little growth of new tissoie? There must be new tissue which unites the 
two edges of the wound you could not get a scar if there was not new 
tissue; but it may unite, and frequently does, so accurately that a long 
time after the operation you cannot tell really, except by the line on the 
surface, that an operation has been done. 

Would you expect, as a rule, to find on a scar after an operation a 
continuous white line? If the scar is not stretched you get a continuous 
white line. 

Then you would expect a continuous white line, unless there had been 
a stretching of the scar? Certainly. 

Next, if a scar is stretched, does it not ordinarily stretch in a lozenge 
shape wider in the middle? Not necessarily. A scar at the lower part 
of the abdomen very often does not, because you have the tendons frequently 
separated during the operation, allowing the scar to be wider at the top. 
It would be somewhat triangular in shape. 

On that point, what is the measurement of this so-called scar? Seven- 
eighths of an inch at the lower part, half an inch at the middle, and a 
quarter of an inch near the top. It is exactly the scar that I have seen 
many times after an operation in this part. 

57 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Pepper 

In the majority of oases, if there has been an operation, do you not 
expect afterwards to see marks of the stitches? In the majority of cases, 
yea; in many, no. 

Are there any marks that you can clearly identify as stitches in this 
case? No. There are some marks which are doubtful, and therefore I 
am not ready to admit that they are not marks of stitches. They suggest 
it, but they do not prove it. Where you have had a scar which has 
become broad like that, very often the stitch marks become merged in the 
margin of the scar; but, even apart from that, stitch marks frequently 
disappear altogether. 

Re-examined by Mr. Mum I was cross-examined at the Police Court 
as 1 to this piece of flesh having come from the abdominal wall. It was 
suggested to me then that the aponeurosis was absent from it. An 
aponeurosis is practically a flat tendon. The muscles of the abdomen are 
flat where the muscular part ends it is flat. To-day I have been asked 
nothing at all about the aponeurosis. The presence of the aponeurosis 
proves absolutely that this comes from the lower part of the abdomen, in 
front. Further, there are upon that piece the pubic hairs, to which atten- 
tion has been called. 

You were asked whether Inspector Dew told you the date on which 
Mrs. Crippen disappeared. Had your knowledge, or want of knowledge, 
of when she disappeared any effect whatever upon the opinion you formed 
as to the time those remains* had been in the ground? None whatever. 
That would not have the slightest effect upon my judgment as a scientific 
man. 

You were asked also whether or not before you discovered that scar 
you knew Mrs 1 . Crippen had been operated upon, and you said that you 
did. Had that information any effect upon your opinion as a scientific 
man asi to whether or not this was a scar? No. I may say that I did 
not discover the scar till 8th August, and if I had wanted to find the scar 
I should have found it before. The opinions that I have expressed to the 
jury are my opinions as a scientific man upon the examination of the 
subject that I have been speaking to. The small weight of the kidney found 
in the remains would be due to loss of moisture, and that in my opinion 
would be very largely due to the presence of the large quantity of lime 
there which would absorb the moisture. 

What id the effect of quicklime upon flesh? Absolute quicklime 
destroys it by abstracting the moisture, becoming converted into hydrate. 

If you had a sufficient quantity of quicklime really quicklime, that 
is, real dry lime it would destroy the whole? Yes. 

Would the presence of damp clay round quicklime have any effect 
upon its action? The damp clay would tend, of course, to convert the quick- 
lime, if it was quicklime, into slaked lime. The presence of the clay would 
make the action of the lime less strong. If lime absorbs moisture from 
anything, from the air or the clay, it loses its power altogether. 

When it becomes slaked what is its effect upon flesh? It does not 
corrode it then; it only becomes slaked, but you have a great deal of 
carbonate of lime formed, and the carbonate of lime facilitates and hastens 
the formation of adipocere. 
58 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

DP Pepper 

With regard to the preservation or otherwise of the tissues, how does 
the slaked lime act, if it acts at all? I think it would practically be inert 
as being a protection. Although I have expressed the opinion that the 
navel was upon that piece of flesh as it originally existed, and that it had 
been removed by an operation, it is, of course, quite possible that the navel 
may have been outside the area of that piece of flesh. The distance varies 
in individuals in my experience it has varied from 4 inches to 6 inches. 
The 6 inches would not be sufficient to take it outside the area of that 
piece; this is 7 inches. I think it is most probable that it was within the 
area of that piece of skin. 

You were asked about the tendinous intersections being absent from 
that piece of flesh. If the entire wall of the abdomen had been present in 
that piece of flesh, would you have found the tendinous intersections? Yes. 

Is the centre wall of the abdomen present there? No. 

Is the part of it which would contain the tendinous intersections there? 
No. Their absence from that piece of flesh does not in any way tend to 
show that that is not a part of the wall of the abdomen. I am confident 
that it is part of the wall of the abdomen, and of the lower part of the 
front of the abdomen. That same observation applies to the linea alba. 
In the thirty-five years since I took my fellowship I ha,ve performed many 
hundreds of abdominal operations. The scar which I found there is such 
as I have frequently found in my actual practice. It is by no means 
uncommon where we perform that operation in the middle line to find the 
white line absent. I examined those remains in the cellar on the 14th and 
in the mortuary on the 15th July. That was a favourable time at which 
to form an opinion as to how long the remains had been in the ground. 
If I had examined the remains for the first time on 9th September it would 
not have been possible to form an opinion of any value as to how long they 
had been in the ground, because then they had been largely exposed to the 
air and the ordinary putrefactive process, decomposition, had attacked 
them. This piece that I have before me has been preserved in a special 
preparation since 8th August. It would not be possible now to form an 
opinion of any value from that piece which has been preserved as to the 
time that the remains had been in the ground, because it is somewhat 
altered by being in that preservative. On 8th August it was in a very 
different condition from what it is in now. The appearance of the fat and 
everything has altered. I examined the section made for Dr. Willcox. 
I found no glands in the part which I say is a scar ; I found glands on each 
side of it. Further, I found that the fibres in the scar were more densely 
placed than outside. There are also glands in the so-called left limb in 
the horse-shoe where the fold was. 

Further cross examined by Mr. TOBIN In the area of what you believe 
to be a scar you would never expect to-find a sebaceous gland, would you? 
Not in the scar itself. 

But I say in the area of what you believe to be a scar you would not 
expect to find a sebaceous gland? That is where the scar is a perfect scar. 
You have not got it like two bricks lying one by the side of the other ; there 
ie a gradation. Where there is a perfect scar there can be no glands. 

In that mark, which in your opinion is a scar, you would not expect 
to find a sebaceous gland? Not in the part which is a perfect scar, but 

59 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Pepper 

you have the normal parts graduating off. It graduates off to the edges, 
so that you do not get a perfect soar there. There are no sebaceous glands 
in the area of the scar. 

If the jury should believe hereafter that there is a sebaceous gland 
in the area of the scar within the area of the so-called perfect scar would 
that not be proof conclusive that it was not a scar? I am afraid I cannot 
answer that. 

A sebaceous gland cannot exist in a perfect scar? Certainly not in 
a perfect scar. 

Would the same observation apply to the hair follicles of the skin? 
If it be established that within the area of what you believe to be a perfect 
scar there is hair, and the hair follicles of the skin, that would be proof 
conclusive that it was not a scar? Well, you have to be absolutely certain 
that it ia an absolutely perfect scar. If you say that, then I say you will 
not get hair follicles in it. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There are two or three questions I want 
to ask you. First, I do not quite understand what has been put to you, 
but I wish to put it on two hypotheses. I first want to ask a question as 
to whether this is a scar; and, secondly, as to its position. We will keep 
the two things separate. As to its being a scar, I understand you to say 
that it is nearly an inch wide at the bottom? Seven-eighths of an inch. 

And it tapers off to something like a quarter of an inch ? Yes. 

Is that in accordance with your experience as to the shape of a scar 
when it becomes a dried and old scar in an abdominal operation? You 
find it bigger at the bottom than at the top ? Yes, and repeatedly in this 
situation. 

Do you generally find, when it does take place between the navel 
and the pubic region, that that is the shape the scar assumes? Frequently. 

Is the navel ever removed in operations? Oh, yes; I have done it 
many times myself. 

Therefore the presence or absence of the navel after the operation will 
not be conclusive one way or the other? No. 

Now, I want to ask you whether or not you can say that in your 
opinion you have no doubt that this is a scar? I have no doubt. 

With that before you, will you tell the jury the reasons why you say 
it was the lower abdominal region, that is between the navel and the 
pubes? In the first place, the scar is wider at the bottom than at the 
top ; and, secondly, there ie this line of hair, which in my opinion is pubic 
hair. 

The pubic hair goes higher up in some individuals than it does in 
others? Oh, yes. 

Do you see any indication of hair on that specimen above the region 
which you think is the pubic region? No. 

Therefore it would confirm your view that it has reached down to the 
pubes, where the hair grows, and has gone up towards the navel? Yes. 

It is suggested that it is a scar of an operation between the navel 
and the breast bone, as I understood it. Can you understand that at all? 
I say absolutely that that is not a piece of flesh which came from above 
the navel. 
60 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. Pepper 

Mr. TOBIN That impression is not what I wanted to convey. It ia 
not part of my case, and it was not present to my mind, but I quite 
appreciate how I may have been misunderstood. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Very well. Then we may take it that if it 
is a scar it is not suggested to be above the navel. 

(To Witness) What is the common operation in which the middle 
line between the navel and the pubes in the seat of the scar, or about 
there? The most common is an operation for diseases in the pelvis, 
removal of the ovaries, or removal of the uterus. Of course, it ia very 
frequently performed in male subjects as well as on female. 

What is the operation in that position which is performed on a male 
subject? Removal of stones from the bladder, taking tumours from the 
bladder. 

Then the scar there would be of the same appearance? Yes. It 
would be less likely to be so wide in a male subject, because as a rule 
there is not so much distension. The width at the bottom would point 
more to a female than to a male subject. 

I understood you to say that what Mr. Tobin called the linea alba 
and these tendinous depressions would be in the part of the abdominal 
wall behind that flesh further in? No, it is in the muscle which liea 
behind the skin. 

But I understood you to say that the part which contained the 
tendinous intersectionsi was not there? Yes, there is a part of the muscle 
there, but the upper part of the muscle has been cut away and removed; 
that is to say, the part of the muscle which might have contained a 
tendinous intersection is not present. 

It would go further into the body ? It would be higher up. 

In what direction has it been sliced? Vertically; the upper part is 
cut in such a way that the muscle is cut lower down than the skin. 

You saw those remains first on 14th July, and you say they cannot 
have been in the ground longer than eight months and less than four 
months before then? That is my opinion. I should have thought they 
might have been in the ground for eight months if I had paid attention to 
some parts where the decomposition or change was 1 made more advanced, 
but looking at certain parts of the skin and the heart, the kidneys and 
the liver, I should have said that if anything they were under four 
months; they were so exceedingly well preserved. 

Looking at all the organs together as they were, though some might 
indicate sufficient change I will not use the word " decomposition " to 
indicate as much as eight months, there are others that indicated it could 
not possibly be eight months? Yes. Looking at the general conditions 
of the organs as they were, I came to the conclusion that they could not 
have been there more than eight months. I think I am allowing a wide 
margin, four to eight months. 

The Court adjourned. 



61 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Third Day Thursday, 20th October, 1910. 

Dr. BERNARD HENRY SPILSBURT, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS 
I am a Bachelor of Surgery of Oxford University, and I hold the 
position of pathologist at St. Mary's Hospital. I have on several occasions 
examined the piece of skin and flesh with a mark on it which was produced 
in Court yesterday, the first occasion on which I saw it being 9th September. 
I have formed the opinion that it comes from the lower part of the wall 
of the abdomen, near the middle. I base that opinion upon the presence 
and arrangement of certain muscles. There is a large mass of muscle 
which is the rectus muscle of the abdomen ; there is a tendon on one side 
of that, an aponeurosis, as 1 it has been already called, and attached to the 
aponeurosis are other pieces of muscle. Besides that there is a row of 
short, dark hairs at the lower margin of the piece, those hairs being in 
my opinion pubic hairs. On 9th September I was asked by Mr. Pepper 
to make a microscopical examination of a section taken from that piece of 
flesh, and I did so. The piece which I examined was about l inches in 
length and nearly half an inch in width. The longer dimension was from 
across. The section that I got included a portion of the mark that has 
been called the scar; it was the middle part with a piece of flesh on each 
side. I did not find any of the outer layer of skin, the epidermis, on the 
surface of the mark. I found a small mass embedded deeply on the scar 
at one spot, which to my mind indicates the line of incision of the skin 
by a previous operation. I took two other pieces of skin from other parts 
of the same preparation, from another part of the same specimen, and in 
those two pieces I found glands. 

In the first piece which you have mentioned did you find glands? I 
found glands at each end of that specimen, on either side of what is called 
the scar. That piece has been cut up completely, but I have the micro- 
scopical preparations. I found no glands in the centre where there is 
the mark called a scar, proving in fact that mark is a scar. There were 
glands in the part of the skin where there is a mark or depression caused by 
folding. At the place where the mark or scar was the skin was denser 
than the rest of the skin. As the result of my microscopical examination 
I say that that mark is undoubtedly an old operation scar. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN I commenced my studies at Oxford 
University, and from there I went to St. Mary's Hospital in 1894. Mr. 
Pepper was a lecturer there then. For the first five or six years that I 
was at St. Mary's Hospital I was associated with Mr. Pepper, but since 
then my work has been entirely independent. 

Dealing with the question of the remains, must the person who 
removed the viscera have been a person of very considerable dexterity? 
He must certainly have had considerable dexterity, yes. 

And must that removal have been done by somebody with a very 
considerable anatomical knowledge, or somebody accustomed to eviscera- 
tion? Certainly some one having considerable anatomical knowledge. 
62 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. Spilsbury 

And accustomed to evisceration 1 Yes, one who has done a considera- 
able amount of evisceration. 

Mr. TOBIN My lord, I do not propose to repeat at any length the 
cross-examination I made of Mr. Pepper yesterday. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is not in the least necessary. I think 
you put your points absolutely plainly and clearly, and I am sure the 
jury will follow them. No observation will be made because you do not 
repeat all that you got from Mr. Pepper. The important thing that is 
fresh is that this witness said that on the scar there were no glands, and 
that on either side there were. 

Cross-examination continued If it should be established that there 
is in the scar a sebaceous gland or a hair and a hair follicle, that would 
be conclusive that it was not a scar. I first formed the opinion that the 
mark in that piece of skin was a scar after I had first examined the piece 
of skin on 9th September. That was before the microscopical examination. 

Before you formed your opinion, when you examined it with your 
eye, you had heard, had you not, that Belle Elmore had had an operation 
in the lower part of the abdomen ? Yes, I believe I had read that in the 
Press. 

Did the condition of the skin, when you saw it for the first time on 
9th September, make it very difficult to form a clear opinion as to whether 
this was a scar? It made it more difficult than if it had been fresh. 

Re-examined by Mr. MUIR I attended lectures by Mr. Pepper, and I 
also received clinical teaching from him. Otherwise I was associated with 
him at St. Mary's only by acting as a surgical dresser as a student. The 
fact that I acted with Mr. Pepper has absolutely no influence upon the 
opinion that I have expressed here. The fact that I had read in the 
papers that there had been a.n operation upon Belle Elmore had no effect 
at all upon the opinion I have expressed. I have no doubt that this 
is a scar. I have also said that if any gland or hair follicle exists in that 
place it will conclusively prove that it is not a scar. I have examined 
microscopically the section which I took out to see whether there is any 
gland or any hair follicle in it, in the scar part of it, and I have failed 
to find any hair follicle or sebaceous gland in that area. If there had 
been any in that area I certainly would have found them. 

Is there anything which might be mistaken for a gland that you saw? 
There is one small mass, which I have mentioned already, of included 
epidermis in the scar. In a surgical operation when the edges of the 
skin are brought into contact it is common for at least one side to turn 
in a little, and, as the scar forms, some of the surface stuff covering the 
skin may become enclosed in the scar and embedded in it. I found such 
a piece of included epidermis in this mark which I say is a scar, and 
having found that I think there is no room for doubt as to its being a scar. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I have an independent position of my own, 
and I am responsible for my own opinion, which has been formed on my 
own scientific knowledge, and not in any way influenced by any supposed 
connection with Mr. Pepper. This embedding of a piece of edge of the 
cut would come about in the process of the healing of the scar. That 

63 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Spilsbury 

embedded flesh would really be something that got in after the cut, and it 
might contain both follicles and sebaceous glands, so that one would have 
to be careful in diagnosing this to see whether one had got the cut without 
an embedded piece or an embedded piece in the cut. I have absolutely 
no doubt in my own mind as regards the scar. What I saw the rectus 
muscle and the aponeurosis is not consistent with the flesh being from 
any other part of the body than that which I have described. I have 
my microscopic slides here, and I shall send for a microscope in case it 
should be wanted. 

Dr. THOMAS MARSHALL, examined by Mr. TRAVBBS HUMPHREYS I am a 
Bachelor of Medicine, and I act as divisional surgeon of police for the 
Kentish Town district. I practise at 25 Caversham Road, Kentish Town. 
On 13th July I was called to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and I got there about 
twenty minutes to six. I went into the cellar where Inspector Dew was, 
and I there saw what appeared to be human remains lying in an excavation 
in the centre of the cellar. At that time they were only slightly exposed. 
I did not touch them at all at that time. I went away, and came back 
again about nine o'clock in the evening, when I found the remains much 
more exposed. I did not disturb them, but I touched them, and picked 
up one or two things. I attended again at the same address on the next 
day, and met Mr. Pepper there. I have been in Court, and have heard 
Mr. Pepper's evidence as to what took place on that day, and I quite 
agree with it. On 15th July I had the coroner's warrant for making a 
post-mortem examination, and I made it in conjunction with Mr. Pepper. 
I have heard Mr. Pepper's evidence with regard to that also, and I quite 
agree with it. On that day I assisted Mr. Pepper in placing some of the 
remains and other matter in some jars, and, having put those matters in 
the jars, I sealed the jars. The stoppers of the jars were bound down 
with tape, and then sealed with my seal, and left in charge of the mortuary- 
keeper. 

On 25th July I made a further examination of the remains other than 
those which were in the jars at the mortuary. On that occasion I found 
a second Hinde's curler exhibit 46 with some hair on it. That was 
among the remains and the soil in the coffin. I myself took that in a 
further jar to Dr. Willcox at St. Mary's Hospital. In that jar I also 
placed a portion of the liver and some of the intestines. On 14th August 
I made a further examination of the remains at the mortuary, and on that 
occasion I found a third Hinde'e curler exhibit 47 which I put in a glass 
jar together with the lungs and some portion of the intestines and one 
or two other matters. I also on that occasion put into another jar some 
of the soil and lime which I took from the coffin. I took all those matters 
to Dr. Willcox on that day. On the same occasion I took to Dr. Willcox 
a box containing some carbolic powder which I got from the mortuary- 
keeper. 

I was with Mr. Pepper on 8th August when he first saw the scar. On 

that day I formed the opinion that that piece of flesh which had the mark 

upon it came from the lower part of the abdominal wall. I formed the 

opinion that it was a scar mark, and that is still my opinion. I have heard 

64 



Evidence for Prosecution. 



Dr. Marshall 



the evidence given by Mr. Pepper with, regard to the condition of the 
various viscera. I examined these with him, and I agree with his evidence. 
That applies not only to the viscera, but to all the remains. -I did not 
find any indication of disease or anything which would cause death. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN Before the magistrate did you say, in 
cross-examination, " Some bodies remain in an excellent state of preserva- 
tion for some years if buried in lime and in soil like clay, which prac- 
tically excludes all air ' ' ? I assented to that. 

Do you agree that it is impossible to give any certain opinion as to the 
length of time that a body has been buried in the earth? Yes, it depends 
upon circumstances. 

Are the reasons that people are unable to give any certain opinion 
as to the length of time a body has been buried these, that many conditions 
may modify the progress of putrefaction after burial, such as the char- 
acter of the soil for one thing; then the depth of the grave; then the 
time that has elapsed before burial, and then the cause of death? Yes. I 
agree that different bodies undergo putrefactive changes with very different 
degrees of rapidity, even when they have been buried under similar con- 
ditions. It was on 8th August that I formed the opinion that that mark 
in the piece of skin and flesh was a scar. I first heard on 18th July 
the date of the first inquest that Belle Elmore had undergone an opera- 
tion, but it must be remembered that the first time I scrutinised the skin 
and flesh was on 8th August. 

You had heard twenty-five days before that that Belle Elmore had had 
an operation? Yes. 

Now I am going to the number of occasions! on which you have seen 
these remains. On 13th July at Hilldrop Crescent in the cellar you first 
saw some remains? Yes. I only slightly touched the top surface; I did 
not separate one part from another, so that there was nothing that could 
be called an examination on that day. I again saw the remains in the 
ground on 14th July; I saw them in process of being taken out and put 
into a shell to be taken to the mortuary. I was in the house at Hilldrop 
Crescent for about three hours on 14th July, while the remains were being 
put into the shell. I only looked into the cellar once or twice where there 
were men working. I made no examination of the remains 1 then. I 
examined the remains for about three hours or two hours and a half on the 
15th at the mortuary. Mr. Pepper was along with me examining them 
during the whole time. 

Did you handle the remains on that day, that piece of skin and 
flesh with the mark on it? I could not possibly say that I handled that. 
Mr. Pepper was handling them, and I was handling them ; I could not say 
whether I handled that one specially, or whether Mr. Pepper did. , 

You have no doubt whatever that you looked at that piece of skin, 
whether you handled it with your hands or not? Quite so. 

And in that sense you examined it with the eye. Is that right? 
Yes. Neither Mr. Pepper nor I used any microscope that day. During 
the three and a half hours' examination we looked at each piece of the 
remains for such time as was possible. To have microscoped or examined 
them in a more minute way would have taken ua all night long. 

65 



Dr. Marshall 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Then that piece with the mark on it did not attract your attention 
in any particular way? No, not specially. 

On the 18th you had heard that Mr. Crippen had had an operation. 
After the 18th what was the date of your next examination of the remains? 
25th July, at the mortuary. I examined them alone for one definite 
purpose for between two and three hours. 

Did you look for, that particular piece of skin with the mark on it, 
on that day, the 25th? I believe not. I had a request from Dr. Willcox 
to supply him with certain other samples of the remains. These had to 
be carefully searched for, with considerable difficulty; the remains had 
greatly changed; they were marked, and it was a considerable task. Dr. 
Willcox had asked me to get for him if possible the other kidney and the 
remainder of the liver and a different portion of intestine. The search 
for the kidney entailed a long time. 

Having heard on 18th July that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation, 
did you inform Mr. Pepper almost immediately, within a day or two, that 
you had heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation?^! think I com- 
municated my information the first time I met Mr. Pepper after that day, 
but what date it might be I do not know. I did speak about the subject 
to him. I do not think I had seen Mr. Pepper between the 18th and 25th 
July; I had no occasion to see him. 

The fact that you had heard on the 18th that Mrs. Crippen had had 
an operation would, I suppose, impress itself upon your mind? You 
would bear it in mind when you next examined the remains? Certainly. 
The next time I examined the remains to use the word strictly was on 
8th August. 

On 18th July you have told us that you heard that Mrs. Crippen had 
had an operation. On 25th July you looked at the remains at Dr. Will- 
cox's request? Tea. 

At that time I suppose you realised in your own mind that the fact 
that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation had an important bearing on the 
case? I had realised it; oh, yes. 

Why, then, did" you not look on 25th July to see whether there was 
any trace of such an operation ? I think you do not realise the nature of 
the task we had to do. I had quite enough to do on that day to satisfy 
Dr. Willcox's request to find what he desired, and that is what I devoted 
my time to entirely. 

Re-examined by Mr. MUIR Did the fact that you had heard that 
Mrs. Crippen had had an operation have any effect on the opinion that 
you formed as to this being a scar or not? None whatever. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICES In certain cases it is very difficult to tell 
how long bodies have been in the ground. I formed an opinion of my 
own as to how long those remains had been in the ground, and I stated 
that opinion at the first inquest before any other witness. I formed the 
opinion that they had been in the ground several months. I did not 
consult Mr. Pepper one single word about this matter before I expressed 
that opinion before the coroner. I formed the opinion on two grounds, 
these two grounds being that on first observing those remains buried 
where we found them, I was somewhat surprised with an appearance 
66 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. Marshall 

of freshness a redness and freshness not the appearance of corruption 
that might be imagined ; but when I came to examine them in detail at 
the mortuary I found the presence of this adipocere certain parts where 
there had been masses of fat, a considerable amount of adipocere, and at 
other parts much less. Forming an estimate to the best of my power of 
the time that would be required for the formation of that adipocere, I 
reckoned it as a matter of several months four, five, or six, I would say. 
With aD the knowledge I have got, the result of all my examinations, I 
could not say precisely how long those remains had been in the ground. 
All I say is that they might have been in the ground several months, up 
to six or possibly up to seven months. 

ARTHUR ROBINSON, examined by Mr TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I live at 
58 Holloway Road. I was formerly a mortuary-keeper at the Islington 
Mortuary Chapel in Holloway Road. On 14th July last a coffin was placed 
in my charge at the mortuary by Mr. Leverton, the undertaker. On 15th 
July five glass jars, sealed, were placed in my care by Dr. Marshall. 
On 2nd August I handed those glass jars to the coroner's, officer, Police 
Constable Thompson. On 19th July I put some carbolic powder upon the 
remains in the coffin. Afterwards I gave some of that carbolic powder to 
Dr. Marshall at his request. 

ROBERT THOMPSON, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am a 
police constable, No. 520, " Y " Division. I act as coroner's officer in the 
Islington district. On 22nd July the last witness handed me five glass jars, 
which I took and handed to Dr. Willcox at St. Mary's Hospital. 

CHARLES PITT, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am a police 
constable of the Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard. 
On 13th July last, by direction of Chief Inspector Dew, I purchased from 
a chemist named Merrell a bottle of disinfectant fluid, called Neville's 
disinfectant fluid. That disinfectant wasi diluted with water, and I poured 
it round the walls of the cellar at 39 Hilldrop Crescent. I left the bottle 
with a little of the fluid in it at the house. On 16th August I went back 
to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and found that bottle where I had left it, and I 
took it to Dr. Willcox at his request. On 15th August I purchased a full 
unopened bottle of the same disinfectant fluid from the same chemist, 
which I took unopened and handed to Dr. Willcox, also at his request. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The hole in the floor was open when I 
poured the stuff round the walls. The remains had not been removed. 

Dr. WILLIAM HENRY WILLCOX, examined by Mr. INOLEBY ODDIE I am 
the senior Scientific Analyst to the Home Office. I am a Bachelor of 
Medicine of London, a Bachelor of Science of London, a Fellow 
of the Royal College of Physicians, and Lecturer on Forensic 
Medicine at St. Mary's Hospital. On 22nd July I received five 
jars from the coroner's officer, Thompson. These jars were 
covered and sealed, and I numbered them. In the first there was a small 
portion of liver and one kidney; in the second, a pair of combinations; 

67 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Dr. Willcox 



in the third, hair in a hair curler, a handkerchief, an undervest, and some 
hair in a piece of paper; in the fourth, a piece of pyjama jacket; and in 
the fifth, two other pieces of pyjama jacket, one piece having a button 
on it, and the other having the neck piece on it with a tab. I have examined 
two complete suits of pyjamas, exhibit 76. They are composed of 
flannelette. The portion which was in the jars is composed of flannelette. 
The buttons on the jackets of the pyjamas, exhibit 76, are exactly similar 
to the button on the piece in the jar No. 5. This one is a little smaller, 
having shrunk a little. It is a circular button with a depression in the 
centre, from which are radiating threads. On 25th July I received another 
jar from Dr. Marshall, which I numbered 6, containing some intestine, 
another curler with hair in it, and a portion of liver. I think that that 
portion with the other portion which I had already got completed the whole 
liver. On 8th August I received from Mr. Pepper a piece of skin with the 
so-called scar on it. That is a piece of skin from the lower wall of the 
abdomen. In my opinion the mark on it is an old scar I am of opinion 
that one limb of what has been described as the horse-shoe mark is a scar, 
and the other limb is a fold. On 14th August I received from Dr. Marshall 
another jar, which I numbered 7, containing some soil and lime, and a jar 
numbered 8 containing lungs, a portion of intestines, a piece of muscle, 
and another piece of hair. I also got the box of carbolic powder that has 
been spoken about. The lungs were in a condition of advanced putrefaction 
when I received them. The kidney I had got much earlier, and it was com- 
paratively fresh, except that it had undergone the process of decay with 
the formation of adipocere, but there was very little ordinary putrefaction 
in it when I received it. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think that the extra putrefaction of those 
two parts was due to the time that had elapsed since they had been taken 
out of the ground. 

Examination continued On loth August I got an unopened bottle of 
Neville's sanitary fluid, and on the 16th an open bottle containing a small 
quantity. On 23rd August I visited 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and 1 procured 
some specimens of the soils from the excavation, which I put into jars Nos. 
9, 10, and 11. On 23rd July I commenced examining some of the viscera 
for poisons. I examined the stomach, the kidney, and a portion of the 
liver. I first of all searched for mineral and organic poisons. I found traces 
of arsenic in the intestines and liver, and I found traces of creosole (the 
chemical name for commercial carbonic acid) in the intestines and liver, 
small traces. I attach no importance to those; they are due to the disin- 
fectants used. I then commenced examining for alkaloidal poisons. I 
started the proceedings immediately I received the organs, but it takes 
some time, some two or three weeks 1 , before one is able to apply the final 
tests. I took weighed portions of the stomach, intestines, kidney, and 
liver, and treated them by the usual process for extraction of alkaloids, 
with the result that I found an alkaloid present in all these extracts, 
then applied further tests to see what kind of alkaloid was present. I 
tested for all the common alkaloids morphia, strychnine, cocaine, and so 
on and I found that a mydriatic alkaloid was present ; that is, an alkaloid 
the solution of which, if put into the eye of an animal, causes the pupil 
68 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. Willeox 

to enlarge and dilate. Having found a mydriatic alkaloid, I applied 
a further test, and found that it was a mydriatic vegetable alkaloid, of 
which there are three atropine, hyoscyainin, and hyoscin. I applied 
further tests, and found that the alkaloid that I had got in the extracts 
corresponded to hyoscin. I have no doubt it was hyoscin. I could tell 
that in two ways, one by examining the residue with a lens and micro- 
scope; it was gummy, there were no crystals there. Another way was by 
adding to a solution of the residue some bromine solution- hydrobromio 
acid and I got round spheres, but no crystals. Hyoscin gives spheres 
exactly like I have got. Atropine and hyoscyamin both give needle- 
shaped crystals. The two things I have described the gummy residue 
and the spheres from the bromine solution pointed to hyoscin only. In 
the stomach there was one- thirtieth of a grain, and in the kidney there 
was one-fortieth of a grain, in the intestines one-seventh of a grain, and in 
the liver one-twelfth of a grain. 

That would be in the part you analysed? No, calculated out of the 
whole organs. There was the merest trace in the lungs. The total amount 
of hyoscin in all the organs submitted to me was two-sevenths of a grain. 
Hyoscin is not used medicinally in the form of hyoscin. It is a gummy 
syrupy stuff, which it would be impossible to handle, and so a salt is used. 
The salt which is used is the hydrobromide of hyoscin ; that is the prepara- 
tion given in the British Pharmacopoeia. In the whole of the organs sub- 
mitted to me the amount of the hydrobromide of hyoscin was two-fifths of 
a grain, which would certainly correspond to more than half a grain in the 
whole body. 

What is a fatal dose? From a quarter of a grain to half a grain. 
Hydrobromide of hyoscin is a drug which is a powerful narcotic poison. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If the fatal dose were given it would 
perhaps produce a little delirium and excitement at first ; the pupils of the 
eyes would be paralysed ; the mouth and the throat would be dry, and then 
quickly the patient would become drowsy and unconscious and completely 
paralysed, and death would result in a few hours. The time when the 
drowsy and unconscious state would be reached would depend on the amount 
given and the condition of the stomach; but, assuming the dose to be 
given which, I think, I can trace, I should think that the drowsy, uncon- 
scious state might come on under an hour probably, and paralysis and 
death in something under twelve hours. The patient would not recover at 
all during these twelve hours if the dose was a fatal dose. 

Examination, continued This isi not a drug that is commonly used. 
If it is given internally it is practically always done by a hypodermic 
injection; it is given with a syringe and a solution is injected under the 
skin. It is used as a powerful sedative for oases of delirium, mania, and 
meningitis, and also for delirium tremens. Very occasionally it is used 
as a hypnotic for insomnia, and sometimes it is given in combination with 
morphia for sedative purposes. In all these cases it would be given hypo- 
dermically. It is used in tabloid form for hypodermic administration. The 
proper dose for a hypodermic injection is one-hundredth to one two- 
hundredth of a grain. As far as I know, it is not used as a homoeopathic 

09 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



DP. Willcox 



remedy. I hive looked through the English and the American pharma- 
copoeias, and the drug is not used. I am of opinion that in this particular 
case this drug was taken by the mouth. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is rather salt and bitter, and it can be 
administered in something with a pronounced flavour, such as stout or beer 
or sweetened tea or coffee, or it could be given with spirits. The sweetened 
liquid would disguise the bitter taste. 

Examination continued What in your opinion was the cause of death 
in this case? Poisoning by hyoscin. I do not know of any legitimate 
internal use for hydrobromide of hyoscin, except in the doses I have 
mentioned. 

How long do you think the patient lived after this drug was taken ? 
Probably an hour or more. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE But what is the most you think she could 
have lived, having regard to what you found in the body? I should say 
from one to twelve hours. 

Examination continued As regards the remains which I have 
examined, I should think that they had been in the ground from about 
four to eight months. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN I have tested for hyoscin before, but 
I believe this is the first case where the question of murder has arisen. I 
have never found hyoscin in extracts from dead bodies before this case. 
There are several alkaloids that are mydriatic in their effect. The term 
" mydriatic " is applied to any drug that dilates the pupil of the eye. There 
are two classes of mydriatio alkaloids, some being vegetable, produced by 
plants, and others being animal mydriatic alkaloids, which are produced 
after death by the action of putrefactive bacteria without any of the 
elements having been introduced into the body during life. These bodies 
are produced fairly late in the process of putrefaction. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE When the organs are much putrefied, then 
these bodies may be found. By " fairly late" I mean in an advanced 
stage of putrefaction. 

Cross-examination continued In the remains I did not discover 
sufficient of the alkaloid to apply what is called the melting point test. 
About 20th August I formed the opinion that what I had found was hyoscin. 

Had you on 2nd August been informed that Dr. Crippen had bought 
some hyoscin? Yes. 

So that eighteen days before you formed the opinion that it was hyoscin 
you had been told that Dr. Crippen had bought some? Yes, that is so. 
The process of ascertaining whether there is an alkaloid in a body at all is a 
long and elaborate process, taking about a fortnight. It is necessary to 
weigh the different parts of the remains where it is supposed that alkaloid 
might possibly be. Those are mixed up quite fine, and then placed in 
rectified spirits of wine. The spirits of wine is drawn off after twenty-four 
hours, and then what is left of the mixed up flesh is placed in another lot 
of spirits, which again is drawn off after another twenty-four hours, and 
so on as long as the liquid which comes away is coloured about five times. 
When the liquid ceases to get coloured we stop. There are several other 

70 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

DP. Willeox 

stages in the process -which I can give if desired. Finally, I found that there 
was an alkaloid present. Of the substance which I found in this first 
process to test whether there was any alkaloid at all, I found one-twelfth 
of a grain in the liver, one-seventh of a grain in the intestines, and one- 
fortieth of a grain in the kidney, calculating out on the whole of these 
organs. Having ascertained that there wasi an alkaloid, I next tested to 
find out whether it was mydriatic. The physiological test would be con- 
clusive on that point, pouring a drop into an animal's eye and finding that 
it dilated the pupil. I put a drop of the solution into a cat's eye, and 
then exposed the cat to a very powerful light, and I found that one pupil 
was widely dilated, which was quite conclusive. 

The three main vegetable mydriatics are hyoscin, hyoscyamin, and 
atropin. There is a fourth vegetable mydriatic, cocaine, but it is not quite 
the same as the other three, because if the eye is exposed to a powerful 
light the pupil contracts. Hyoscin and hyoscyamin are produced by the 
plant called henbane, and atropin is produced from belladonna, which ia 
called the deadly night-shade. Up to a few years ago it waa thought that 
these three vegetable mydriatics had the same chemical composition, but 
in the last edition of the British Pharmacopoeia different formula was 
given for hyoscin, and all the recent work on these alkaloids points to the 
fact that hyoscin has a slightly different formula from the other two. 
Hyoscyamin and atropin are still the same. I believe it will be about eight 
years since they were discovered to be different from hyoscin. The formula 
for hyoscin is C 17 H 21 N0 4 , and atropin and hyoscyamin C 17 H 23 N0 3 . It 
was recognised in the profession for a number of years that the formulae 
for all three were exactly the same. Putrefying bodies give off compounds 
containing carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. 

Therefore, to that extent, the constituents of a vegetable mydriatic 
alkaloid exist in animal mydriatics? The constituents exist, but the com- 
bination is different. In order to find out which mydriatio the alkaloid 
was I applied what is known as the Vitali test. That is a test by which 
one arrives at something which is coloured purple violet, which gradually 
fades away to a brownish colour. 

la the arrival at that point (violet fading away to a brownish colour) 
characteristic of mydriatic alkaloids, both vegetable and animal? No, 
certainly not with the animal; it is with the vegetable. I am not sure that 
I have heard of Hamilton and Bodkin's " Legal Medicine." I have heard 
of Giotto and Spiecke. 

Are they recognised as high authorities ? I believe they are well-known 
chemists. 

Have you read that, according to Giotto and Spiecke, certain homa- 
tropines do give Vitali's reaction? I have read that, but I have looked 
through the literature and through the work of these gentlemen, and I have 
been unable to find any record of it. I do not agree with that statement. 
Even if that statement were contained in the original papers, I do not agree 
with it, as it does not agree with my experience. I agree that that reaction 
the violet fading to a brownish colour is a peculiar characteristic of all 
three vegetable mydriatics, hyoscin, hyoscyamin, and atropin, and therefore, 

71 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Dr. Wllleox 



when I arrive at that violet colour fading to a brown, I must go a step 
further in order to ascertain which of the three vegetable mydriatics it is. 

Is not the melting point test the important test in order to ascertain 
which of those three vegetable mydriatics you are dealing with? It is an 
important test, but not the important test. It is a test which can only be 
applied when one has a considerable quantity of the alkaloids to deal 
with. 

Which do you consider the most important test? The careful observa- 
tion, with a lens and a microscope, of the alkaloid itself, as to whether it 
is crystalline or gummy; also the bromine test, which has already been 
mentioned the obtaining of crystals. From a careful observation of the 
alkaloid I found it to be gummy, which is characteristic of hyoscin. Gummi- 
nees is not characteristic of hyoscyamin and atropin; they are crystalline. 
I arrived at the gumminess when I had found out that it was an alkaloid, 
but before I had applied any test to find out whether the alkaloid was 
mydriatic; in other words, before I applied the physiological test to the 
cat's eye. 

Then gumminess, I gather from you now, was the result of these 
extracts which resulted in your ascertaining that it was an alkaloid? Yes. 

Supposing that the alkaloid had, in fact, been hyoscyamin or atropin, 
might not gumminess have been the result, too, at that stage? Most 
probably there would have been some crystals there. 

But might there not, in fact, have only been gumminess? There might 
possibly, but on re-crystallisation crystals would have appeared. 

Might not the gumminess have possibly been hyoscyamin or atropin ? 
Not if the extracts were fairly pure. If the extracts were impure and had 
other materials in, then a gummy residue might have been obtained with 
atropin and hyoscyamin. I applied the bromine test after I had applied 
Vitali's test. The bromine test is only of value in discriminating between 
those three vegetable alkaloids. Other things besides hyoscin give those 
spheres which I have spoken of. 

Would I be right in suggesting that, though the brown spheres enable 
you, as you say, to discriminate between which of the three vegetable 
mydriatics it may be, it does not enable you to say whether it may not 
be in fact animal? You are quite right. 

I suggest to you that the melting point test is really the most im- 
portant, the clearest test of all in results, for this reason, that the melting 
points of the different mydriatic alkaloids are very widewly different? The 
melting points is a test which it is quite impossible to apply in any toxico- 
logical investigation. If you have a sufficient quantity of alkaloid several 
grains of it then the melting point test is a very valuable one, but you 
can never get enough in a toxicological case to apply the test. 

But if you could get enough it would be a very valuable one? If you 
could get enough, but there would have to be an enormous amount taken 
as poison. 

Will you agree that if you could get enough it would be the most 
valuable test of all? No, I would not agree with that. I agree that the 
different mydriatic alkaloids have a melting point of widely different degrees, 
provided that they are in a very pure condition. 
72 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

DP. Willeox 

Do you agree that the melting point of hyoscin is 65 degrees centi- 
grade, of hyoscyamin 105 degrees, and of atropin 115 degrees? Yes, those 
figures are right, except -with regard to hyoscin, which is a gummy syrup, 
and it is very difficult to say what the melting point is. I agree that the 
melting point for hyoscin is lower, but it is very difficult to fix the point, 
because with the gummy substance one cannot tell when the point is reached. 
Another very important test to ascertain which mydriatic it is is a test 
called the conversion of alkaloid into a gold chloride compound. That 
conversion is effected by dissolving the alkaloid in diluted hydrochloric 
acid, adding a solution of chloride of gold, and allowing the product to 
crystallise. In that conversion process, when the different mydriatic 
alkaloids are converted into gold chloride compounds, the melting point of 
each is enormously different. 

So that is, I think you will agree, the most valuable test? It is a 
very valuable test if you have sufficient, but I had not sufficient. I con- 
templated the application of that test very seriously. If one has a sufficient 
quantity it is perhaps the most valuable test for discriminating between the 
three alkaloids. In that test the melting points are atropin, 148 degrees ; 
hyoscyamin, 160 degrees; and hyoscin, 199 degrees. 

Re-examined by Mr. Mum The chloride of gold conversion process 
was the first process that I contemplated applying in the present case, 
but I found that. I had not strong enough solutions, and that if I had applied 
it I should have wasted all the material unsuccessfully. The melting point 
test is one in which in my experience one would never receive a sufficient 
quantity to apply in a poisoning case where the poison was an alkaloid. 
For the purpose of a poisoning investigation one must by necessity use 
tests which apply to very small quantities. 

Are the tests which you have applied in this case real tests? Oh, yes. 
I tried all these tests on the pure alkaloids themselves before I applied 
them to extracts from the viscera, and I found them reliable, and corre- 
sponding exactly. As the result of my tests I am able to say to my 
own satisfaction that this substance was not an animal alkaloid. Animal 
mydriatic alkaloids are produced in decaying bodies at an advanced state 
of putrefaction. In this case the lungs were much the most putrefied 
of the organs ; and I tested them most carefully, and I found the least trace 
of mydriatic alkaloid not enough to paralyse the pupil, but just to 
weaken it. There was not enough to distinguish whether it was animal 
or vegetable in the lungs. 

You were asked about this process of extraction being long and 
elaborate, and you said it took about a fortnight. Have you been in 
the habit of applying this test? Oh, yes, a very great many times. In 
the last ten years I have done it considerably over a hundred times. It 
does not present any difficulties which I am not accustomed to deal with. I 
produce some specimens of the three vegetable alkaloids, marked No. 81. 
When you have extracted this alkaloid it is not possible to confuse in 
appearance the gummy residue with the crystalline residue of the other 
if you have a pure residue. I had a pure residue. I have never found 
in all my investigations an animal alkaloid which gave purple colour with 
the Vitali test. I have tested several hundreds of times, and recently on 

73 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



DP. Willcox 



some viscera several years old, and I have been unable to obtain it in any 
single case. I have never found one animal alkaloid to correspond to 
Vitali's test, and I have tested specially for that hundreds of times. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE A considerable portion of my time is 
occupied in this kind of investigation ; it is by no means a novelty to me. 

You have told Mr. Tobin, very fairly, that animal alkaloids are pro- 
duced in what you call the advanced stages or late stages of putrefaction. 
Apart from your examination, were there any organs in such a stage of 
putrefaction that you would expect to have alkaloids produced? No, not 
those that I examined for alkaloids first. The lung, which I examined 
two or three weeks later, was in such a state that there might have been 
some animal alkaloid there. I have no doubt in my own mind that it was 
vegetable alkaloid that I discovered, and also that it was hyoscin. 

There is a question which I am asked by the jury to put which seems 
to be important. You have mentioned that hyoscin in the form of 
hyoscin hydrobromide is in the Pharmacopoeia? Yes. 

Do you know of any medicines which could be compounded by a pre- 
scription in which hyoscin hydrobromide would be given as medicine by 
the mouth ? No, I have never heard of it being given by the mouth. So 
far as I know hyoscin is not used by doctors to make up medicines which 
are to be taken by the mouth. The medical internal use of it is limited 
to hypodermic use, and then in doses such as I have described in my 
evidence-in-chief. I do not know of any medicine existing in which such 
a quantity as two-sevenths of a grain could have been used internally. If 
intended to be taken through the mouth, I know of no medicine in which 
hyoscin is used. 

Dr. ARTHUR PEARSON LUFF, examined by Mr. MUIR I am a 
Doctor of Medicine, a Bachelor of Science of the University of London, a 
Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, physician to St. Mary's Hospital, 
Honorary Scientific Adviser to the Home Office, and for seventeen years I 
was the late Sir James Stevenson's colleague as Scientific Adviser to the 
Home Office, which post I resigned six years ago. I have followed up Dr. 
Willcox's tests for hyoscin as given in evidence, and I agree that they 
are absolutely the right test. I have repeated all the tests recently with 
specimens of the pure drug, and I quite agree with Dr. Willcox that the 
poison that was present was undoubtedly hyoscin, judging by those tests. I 
have in a large number of cases tested for animal mydriatic alkaloids, but 
only on one occasion did I ever come across an animal mydriatic alkaloid, 
and that was from some excessively putrefied meat. I have for seventeen 
years always tested for these animal alkaloids in toxicological cases, and 
before that I conducted a long series of investigations upon animal alkaloids, 
but I have never found a mydriatic animal alkaloid in the human body. I 
once found it in some meat that I put to putrefy under circumstances very 
favourable to putrefaction. In that case I applied first of all the 
physiological test to the eye of a cat, and it produced dilation. I then 
applied Vitali's test, but it did not give the colour that the mydriatic 
vegetable alkaloids give. I think it is quite impossible for hyoscin to be 
mistaken for animal mydriatic alkaloid under the Vitali's test. And 
74 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Dr. Luff 

animal alkaloid could not be mistaken for hyosoin if the Vitali's test is 
used. One can distinguish absolutely between the animal and vegetable. 

Cross-examined by Mr. TOBIN I wrote a book on " Forensic Medicine 
and Toxicology," which was published in 1895. I have been in Court 
all morning, and have heard the questions that were put to Dr. Marshall. 

I will read from your book at page 61. " It is impossible to give 
any certain opinion as to the length of time a body has been buried in 
the earth ; the reason is that many conditions may modify the progress 
of putrefaction after burial, such as the character of the coffin and soil, the 
depth of the grave, the time that hasi elapsed before burial, and the cause 
of death. In addition, different bodies undergo putrefactive changes with 
very different degrees) of rapidity, even when they have been buried under 
similar conditions. For instance, three bodies were buried at the same 
time, side by side, wrapped in cloth of the same texture, and in coffins 
of the same kind of wood. In connection with one of these bodies it was 
found at the end of nine months that the abdominal walls had quite dis- 
appeared; in another the disappearance of the abdominal walls did not 
take place until an interval of thirteen months from the period of burial ; 
in the third one, at the end of twenty-three months the abdominal walla 
were almost entire." That is your experience? Yes, I wrote those lines, 
and I absolutely agree with them. 

If a mydriatic alkaloid is produced in putrefying meat is there any 
scientific reason why it should not be produced in putrefying human re- 
mains? I know of no reason, except that putrefying human remains are 
not exposed to the conditions, asi a rule, in which I exposed that meat in 
order to get this mydriatic alkaloid. That is the only reason I can give. 
I can only say that I have never met it in human corpses. 

Re-examined by Mr. Mum The remains in connection with thia oase 
were not shown to me. 

You did not ask to have them shown to you? Oh, no, for a very 
good reason. 

What was the reason? That I should never attempt to express an. 
opinion as to the time that those remains had been buried after they had 
been exhumed some days; they change so rapidly. I could have given 
an opinion at the time the remains were moved, but not a week or ten 
days after. I could have formed an opinion at the time if I had seen 
them as Mr. Pepper did. There is nothing in that passage from my 
book to detract from what I now say, that I could give an opinion. 

CHARLES HBTHERINGTON, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am 
a qualified chemist employed by Messrs. Lewis & Burrows, chemists, 108 
New Oxford Street. I know the prisoner Crippen through hisi coming 
into the shop as a customer. About 17th or 18th of January last he 
called and ordered five grains 4 of hyo'scin hydrobromide from me. I 
asked him what it was for, and &s far as I remember he stated it was 
for homoeopathic purposes. We did not have any of it in stock in 
the form he ordered ; we only had it mixed with another substance, in 
this case, sugar of milk. I told him so, and he asked me to order it for 
him, which I did from a wholesale house called the British Drugs House, 

75 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Charles Hetherington 

Limited. I have been in the employ of Messrs. Lewis & Burrows for 
over four years, and I have never known as much as five grains of hyoscia 
hydrobromide to have been kept in stock there. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS I know Dr. Crippen quite 
well as a customer. I have known him since I have been at this branch, 
three years. He has, from time to time, purchased a number of drugs 
from me, sometimes cocaine, sometimes morphia, sometimes mercury and 
other drugs. His name and address were quite well known to me. He 
signed the poisons register book quite willingly. I am aware that hyoscin 
is generally used as a sedative in nervous cases. ^ 

Re-examined by Mr. MUIR Have you heard the medical men in thia 
case say what it is used for? Only through the papers. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I know from my own experience what it 
is used for. It is a narcotic and a mydriatic. 

By Mr. MUIR It is used as a sedative to produce sleep, and it is 
generally supplied in tabloid form. I cannot remember whether I have 
sold it in tabloids!. Tnat is not the form in which I sold it to Dr. Crippen. 
When sold in tabloid form for hypnotic purposes, I should think that the 
doctor would administer it to the patient. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you know? No. Dr. Crippen could 
not get any poison of this kind without signing the poisons register book. 

One of the jurymen requests me to ask this question. Do you know 
of Dr. Crippen having purchased hyoscin on any other occasion from 
you? No. The order of 17th January was the only one that I know of. 

HAROLD KIRBY, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am 
an assistant to Messrs. Lewis & Burrows, chemists, 108 New Oxford Street. 
I wa8 not in the shop on the occasion of 17th or 18th January when Dr. 
Crippen ordered some hyoscin, but I was in the shop on 19th January 
when he came to have the drug delivered to him. On that day I handed 
him five grains of Kyoscin hydrobromide in the form of small crystals in 
either a tube or a box. Dr. Crippen signed the sale of poisons register, 
exhibit 38. The entry is dated 19th January, 1910, and is as follows: 
" Name of purchaser, Munyons, per H. H. Crippen. Address of pur- 
chaser, 57-61 Albion House. Name and quantity of poison sold, five 
grains of hyoecin hydrobromide. Purposes for which it is required, 
homoeopathic preparation. Signature of purchaser, H. H. Crippen." I 
entered the date and the name and quantity of the drug, and the rest of 
the entry was written by Dr. Crippen in my presence. Exhibit 49 is 
a list of drugs, of which we have kept a record, which have been purchased 
from us by Dr. Crippen chiefly poisons. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. It is not usual for a doctor to sign the 
poisons book for every quantity of poison that he buys. 

Examination continued That list contains several quantities of 
cocaine, some of morphia, but no hyoscin. The list is as follows: 
" llth February Cocaine hydrochlor. 19th March Hydrogen peroxide; 
acid hydrochlor; cocaine hydrochlor; morphia acetae. 17th March 
Cocaine hydrochlor; morphia acetas. 19th April Cocaine hydrochlor 
and acid hydrochlor. 16th May Cocaine hydrochlor. 13th May 
76 



Evidence for Prosecution. 

Harold KIrby 

Cocaine hydrochlor. 2nd September Iodine, resub. 28th September 
Cocaine hydrochlor." 

Do you know whether cocaine is used in dentistry? It is used in 
preparing an anaesthetic. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS I have known Dr. Crippen 
since about October of last year. He has bought large quantities of 
poison from our shop. As a rule he did not sign the poisons book. We 
did not require him to do so, because we knew him, and knew him as 
a medical man. When he signed the book for the hyoscin he did not 
raise the slightest objection. 

WILLIAM. HATMAN, examined by Mr. MUIR I am a detective sergeant 
of the Metropolitan Police at New Scotland Yard. On 18th August I 
went to St. Mary's Hospital and got exhibits 44, 45, 46, and 47 from 
Dr. Willcox. I showed those exhibits on the same day to the witness 
Mrs. Harrison at the hospital, and then I returned them to Dr. Willcox. 
I showed Mrs. Harrison also a woman's undervest that I got from Dr. 
Willcox. It was in a very dirty state. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS Before I took Mrs. Harrison 
to see those things I told her that she was going to see something which 
was found with the remains at Hilldrop Crescent. 

Mrs. ADELINE HARRISON, examined by Mr. Mum I ain a married 
woman living at 11 Ashmere House, Acre Lane, Brixton. I knew Cora 
Crippen, whose stage name was Belle Elmore, for some twelve or thirteen 
years. When, I first knew her her hair was dark brown. The colour 
afterwards altered, as it was bleached. I was shown exhibits 44, 45, 46, 
and 47 at St. Mary's Hospital on 18th August. The hair in those exhibits 
resembles Mrs. Cri,ppen's hair as I have seen it in the morning before 
she was dressed, before her hair was curled. I was also shown at the 
hospital an undervest or camisole. I have seen Mrs. Crippen dressing 
on several occasions. She wore an undervest similar to the one that was 
shown to me. It was the kind of undervest that I have seen other people 
wear besides Mrs. Crippen. 

Cross-examined by Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS I have known the Crippens 
for a number of years. 

Do you agree with the other witnesses who spoke to the same effect, 
that Dr. Crippen was always very amiable with his wife? Very kind, 
very amiable, and a very good husband. 

When you looked at those jars in front of you, you knew perfectly 
well where they had come from? Yes. They were the only jars that were 
put in front of me for identification. Mrs. Crippen was a, woman who 
was very particular about the appearance of her hair. There is nothing 
to identify the Hinde's hairpin by, as such pins are very common. 

With regard to the camisole, do you agree that there are a great 
number like that worn? Yes, but Mrs. Crippen always wore those 
camisoles. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think Mrs. Crippen dyed her hair 
about six or seven years after I knew her, and after that she always had 
H 77 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Adeline Harrison 

her hair bleached. She used to wear golden curls. She told me that Dr. 
Crippen bleached her hair in the first instance. When her hair was down 
in the morning one could see the original colour on the part nearest the 
roots. 

Mr. Mure That, my lord, is the case for the Crown. 



Opening Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. TOBIN opened the case for the defence by saying that the moment 
he sat down Dr. Crippen would go into the witnessi-box and tell his tale. 
He would be followed by medical men of good positions and the highest 
qualifications, who would speak on the length of time the remains might 
have been buried. They would criticise the evidence for the Crown and 
discuss whether the piece of skin came from the abdomen of any person 
at all. One of them was a man of the highest reputation as a microscopic 
expert in the medical profession, and he and others would give conclusive 
reasons why the mark on the piece of skin was not a scar at all. If there 
were doubt as to whether the piece of skin came from any one's abdomen, 
and if there were doubt as to whether it were a scar or no, then it afforded 
no evidence whatever that the remains were those of Belle Elmore. They 
would be followed by an expert in poisons of high reputation, who would 
give them his reasons why the alkaloid found in the remains might not 
have been a vegetable alkaloid introduced into the body during life, but 
an animal alkaloid produced by the ordinary process of putrefaction in a 
dead body. He had carefully considered what was best in the interests 
of his client to do, and he had come to the conclusion that at this stage 
he should deal at length with the evidence which had been given for the 
Crown, and that he should outline quite shortly afterwards the evidence 
that he would lay before the jury. He promised that at the end of the 
case, when the evidence had all been given, he would not occupy their 
time by any lengthy speech, because he meant to deal with the matter 
once and for all. 

Anxious, indeed, as must be the task of any man engaged in the 
defence of a fellow-man upon his trial for life, it must be rendered a 
thousand times more anxious when for weeks and months the columns 
of the Press had been filled by discussions of the case and gossipy details, 
some of which might be true and some false. Every man and woman in 
the land had discussed this case, and the danger of it was that they 
only partially knew the facts. All that publicity to gratify the public 
taste must be fraught with a grave danger to the administration of 
justice, because it was human nature that the man who read these columns 
should inevitably take a view regarding Dr. Crippen before his trial. They 
knew how difficult it was to wipe the slate clean, and to approach the case 
with an absolutely open mind. He knew, however, that the jury were 
determined, so far as their will power would enable them, to do their best 
to try this case in an unbiassed and absolutely unprejudiced way. Had 
78 



Opening Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobin 

the Crown proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the remains found in 
the cellar were the remains of a woman at all? Had the Crown proved 
that they were the remains of Belle Elmore? Never mind what their 
suspicions might be; they must prove beyond all doubt that those remains 
were the remains of a woman, and those of Belle Elmore, or else the 
prisoner was entitled as a right to be acquitted. 

The first outstanding feature in the evidence was Dr. Crippen's repu- 
tation amongst those who knew him best and had known him for long 
years. From every witness who had known him came the same tale; 
these were the characteristics in the very words the witnesses had used 
"amiable," "kind-hearted," "good-hearted," "good-tempered," 
"one of the nicest men I ever met." The people who gave him that 
character were people of different ages, of different interests, and of both 
sexes. Could the jury say that that reputation was not deservedly earned 1 
Yet it was openly suggested that a man with those characteristics suddenly 
became a fiend incarnate. And for what motive Did they believe, if he 
deserved that reputation, that he would have killed his wife and hacked 
the body to pieces for the suggested money motive? Crippen was not in 
debt, and he could not draw a single farthing from the deposit account in 
the Charing Cross Bank until after twelve months' notice. Notice had 
been given by Belle Elmore in December of last year, but were they to be 
told that, in order to get money in December, 1910, he murdered his 
wife eleven months before? He did not forget that the death of his wife, 
if brought about by Dr. Crippen, would perhaps have rendered the house- 
hold less expensive; but was that an adequate motive for a crime like this? 
The Crown would not suggest any other motive, but he must deal with 
all possible ones. Could it be said that he murdered his wife in order 
to marry his mistress? He did not fly from the country with his 
mistress until the month of July. He had never married her, and surely 
that could not be a motive. It was suggested that this man criminally 
abused the skill and dexterity of a surgeon and a man well versed in 
anatomy, and removed all trace of sex, the head, the hands, the feet, 
and the bones. Had he that dexterity? He did not practice in anatomy; 
he had never conducted a postrmortem in his life; he knew nothing of 
anatomy or operations except what he had learned in his student days 
long years ago. 

His manner at the time of the alleged murder, and for months after- 
wards, could not be wiped aside. Just before the wife's disappearance, 
and for months afterwards, he showed no sign of agitation, no sign of 
fright, no seeking to avoid his friends and his wife's friends. Dr. 
Crippen showed no signs of constraint at the dinner party on 31st January, 
and yet it was suggested that he was shortly to give the poison he had 
bought some twelve days before to the woman who was sitting at the 
other end of the table. The next day he went to work as usual, having, 
it was suggested by the Crown, murdered his wife and left her body in 
the house alone. He could not have got rid of the bones, the head, the 
hands, and the feet, and buried the flesh in the few short hours between 
1.30 a.m. and his going to his work next morning. What murderer 

79 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Tobin 



would run the risk of leaving the body behind like that? On the same 
day he called upon Mrs. Martinetti and told her that his wife was all 
right; and so he believed her to be, because he had left her at home all 
right. At the very time that he was going about his busines^ and calling 
on his friends as usual, showing no sign of terror, if he was the murderer, 
he was cutting up the body in his house, and carrying away the remains 
piecemeal. It was said that he had the night-time to do these things in. 
Was it conceivable that he could have done that without somebody noticing 
something? Could he have spent the long hours through the night at 
home after his work doing things like that, without any trace being visible 
on his face when he went to his work at the usual hours day by day? It 
was suggested that he took Le Neve to live over the remains of the wife 
ho had murdered. Did they believe that if he had murdered his wife, 
and recently buried her remains in his cellar, he would have left his house 
for those days when he took Le Neve to Dieppe? There was no proof 
whatever that he had ever had a surgical knife ; there was no trace of blood 
found anywhere in the house; aa regards the suggestion that he buried 
the remains, no pickaxe to get out the bricks had been traced; and there 
was no proof of the purchase of any lime by him. 

Belle Elmore disappeared after 1.30 in the early morning of 1st February 
disappeared as far as the world knew, except, of course, her husband, 
who said that he saw her in the house after breakfast when he left her on 
1st February. Since then Belle Elmore had gone out of his life, as she 
had threatened many times that she would. It was a strange thing, but 
strange things happened at all times, and would happen again to the end 
of time. 

The jury had to consider and say to themselves, had the Crown dis- 
charged the burden cast upon it in every criminal case, and all the more 
serious a burden in a case of life and death? They had to consider, in 
connection with the disappearance of Belle Elmore, who she was, what she 
had been, her characteristics, what was her life at home with Crippen. 
Belle Elmore was the daughter of a Pole. Eighteen years ago, in 1892, 
ehe married Dr. Crippen in America. She was nineteen then; he was 
thirty, roughly speaking. The jury would believe him that he did not 
wish to cast a stone at Belle Elmore. But it was a thing they could not 
and ought not to forget that she had been living under the protection of 
some one in New York at the time she married him, and he knew it. 
After their marriage they came to London and lived in London. Then, 
as they knew, there came a time when Belle Elmore remained behind, and 
Dr. Crippen went to America to become manager of Munyons. When 
Dr. Crippen returned to England and joined his wife again he found her 
manner wholly changed. Her temper was quite ungovernable, her love 
had gone. He found what they now knew to be a fact, that Bruce 
Miller, then a music hall artist, had been repeatedly visiting his wife. He 
eaw and read letters from Bruce Miller to his wife written to her while 
Dr. Crippen was in America, and of which at that time he knew nothing. 
Those letters enabled counsel to put the question to Bruce Miller, " Did 
you not write affectionate letters with the words ' Love and kisses to 
Brown Eyes' "? Bruce Miller admitted that he wrote such letters. He 
80 



Opening Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobin 

further admitted that he had often kissed Mrs. Crippen. " Under the 
circumstances," Bruce Miller said, " I thought there was no impropriety 
in writing those letters and kissing her." Under the circumstances! 
The husband was away and knew nothing of it. What inference did they 
draw from those admissions of Bruce Miller? Love letters, kisses, husband 
absent, and after the husband came back to England frequent visits by 
Bruce Miller to Belle Elmore. He never went there to her whilst Crippen 
was present. Since then the relations of husband and wife between 
Dr. Crippen and his wife did not continue. They did not sleep together. 
Then there came, perhaps not unnaturally, an intimacy on the part of 
Crippen with somebody else, and Le Neve became his mistress. They 
had to take all these things into consideration. Before their friends, it 
was true, Crippen and his wife appeared to be cordial in their relations. 
There was, however, one little matter bearing on those relations. Dr. 
Burroughs told them he had noticed that Belle Elmore was hasty in 
temper towards her husband. She had threatened over and over again 
after the intimacy with Bruce Miller had been found out by Dr. Crippen, 
and after the quarrels she had had with him, that she would leave him 
and go out of his life. Time after time the thing blew over. It was 
simply a cry of " wolf," and nothing came of it. At last, however, the 
threats which she had so often made were carried out, and at last she did 
go out of his life. 

The position, therefore, was this. There was an illicit intimacy 
between Mrs. Crippen and Bruce Miller, and an illicit intimacy between 
Crippen and Le Neve the latter might be another reason for Mrs. Crippen's 
departure. Where was she now? Why did she go? She went because 
she had long disliked Crippen, and her dislike had turned to hate. Who 
knew where Belle Elmore was? Who knew whether it was Belle Elmore's 
flesh that was buried in the cellar? Who knew for a certainty whether 
Belle Elmore was alive to-day or not? Who knew for certain whether 
she was abroad, whether she was ill or well, alive or dead? In a case 
of life and death, and in a charge of murder, they had to know, to know 
beyond all reasonable doubt, before they could find a verdict that would 
send a fellow-man to death. It was not enough that they should suspect. 
The law said that beyond all reasonable doubt they had to know. 

Mr. Tobin, continuing the narrative of events, said, after the Mar- 
tinettis had left the house at 1.30 a.m. on 31st January the fault-finding 
wife, Mrs. Crippen, for the paltry cause that Mr. Martinetti had been 
under the doctor's orders, and the window had been left open, worked 
herself up, with an ungovernable temper, as women did, and men, he 
supposed, did likewise. It was the old story again, " I will stand this 
no longer ; this is the finish. I will leave you to-morrow. You will 
never see me again." But she added on this occasion, with meaning in 
her voice, " This time I mean to go. Cover up the scandal in the best 
way you can." It was a small cause, but a small spark caused, they 
knew, a forest fire. The result might well be tremendous, and so he 
suggested it was in this case. The cause was obvious the quarrel after 
the Martinettis had left in the early morning. There had been many 
such quarrels. Crippen got up in the morning, thinking no more of it. 

81 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Tobin 



He went off, leaving his wife at home, expecting to find her at home on 
his return. He went to work in the usual way. There was the natural 
call on the Martinettis during lunch time; he did not attach sufficient 
importance to the incident of the quarrel to refer to it. He did not 
see any reason for washing dirty linen, and to Mrs. Martinetti's inquiry he 
said his wife was well. 

Then he went home in the evening, only to find that she was gone, 
and he recalled the words which she had added for the first time to her 
old and oft-repeated quarrels, " This time I mean it. Cover up the 
scandal in the best way you can." Thereupon he foolishly embarked upon 
(as Mr. Muir aptly described it) a campaign of lies to cover up the scandal 
to carry out his wife's wishes. " Avert the scandal among our friends 
in the best way you can." And so on the evening of 1st February Crippen 
invented the lie, to explain her absence, that she had been called away to 
America on business and to see her friends. So he wrote two letters, 
one to the committee and the other to the secretary of the Music Hall 
Ladies' Guild. If the Lord Chief Justice thought proper they should see 
those letters. Both were written in an undisguised hand. The one 
signed "Belle Elmore, p.p. H.H.C.," showed, of course, that the hand 
which wrote it was "H.H.C.," not Belle Elmore. There was no dis- 
guise whatever about the writing in the letters tendering excuses. Of 
course, the lies had to go on. He need not deal with that part of the 
case. A cable came on Tuesday night, 1st February, saying she had 
gone to California to see a relation who was ill. To cover up the scandal 
and in order to account for her absence, when she did not return as the 
days passed, the lies that he had told had necessarily to be developed to 
account for her non-return. Therefore there came the lie that she was 
ill with pneumonia, then that she had become worse. And when he 
realised that she would not return that she had carried out the threat 
she had made in order effectively to stop any talk among neighbours 
and friends and intimates, the lie was invented that she was dead. Then, 
of course, in pursuance of the policy he had adopted, he had to say to 
friends who asked for the address where she died, " I can't and won't 
give you the address. Her ashes are to be cremated and sent over here." 
The whole story was invented to cover up the scandal. 

It was said he pawned her jewellery and gave away her clothes, and 
therefore must have known she was dead. It would be idle to 
pretend that when she went Crippen was overwhelmed with grief. Not 
at all. They had not been on good terms at home. Under those cir- 
cumstances he was not in the least keen or anxious to find out where she 
had gone. He was not grieved he was not concerned to advertise in the 
papers to inquire from any of her relatives in America or elsewhere where 
she had gone. He had his mistress, Miss Le Neve who had been his 
mistress for some few years and in those circumstances Dr. Crippen saw 
no impropriety whatever in giving to hia mistress his wife's jewels and 
furs, and in pawning others. He had earned the money; he had paid 
for the things. No inference adverse to the prisoner was to be drawn 
from that. It was all done openly. The jewellery was worn by Miss 
Le Neve at the ball which people who knew his wife were sure to attend. 
82 



Opening Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobin 

Such things as he pawned he pawned openly at a pawnbroker's where he 
had been before, and where his name and address were known. He 
did not go to a pawnbroker who did not know him, where he might hare 
given a false address. He pawned them in his own true name. There 
was no secrecy about it. He saw no harm in it at all. 

He passed on to 8th July and the arrival of Mr. Dew and Miss Le 
Neve at Albion House. Mr. Dew said he was not at all satisfied about the 
matter, and there was instant readiness on the part of Dr. Crippen to 
answer any question, and he made a long statement giving the details of 
the quarrel, much the same as he had described it just now, guessing 
that she had gone away with Bruce Miller, but not knowing with whom 
she had gone, in fact. It was not suggested now, of course, that she 
had gone with Bruce Miller. He was going to suggest that before he put 
the question to Bruce Miller. But it did suggest itself at the time 
that she had gone off with Bruce Miller, with whom she had been on very 
affectionate terms. To say that he pawned all his wife's: things was untrue. 
It was an inaccurate thing to say, but he did it to cover up a scandal. 
They would remember the words in the statement, " I invite you to look 
round my house in Hilldrop Crescent, and to do whatever you like in it." 
Here was a supposed murderer readily and willingly going with the chief 
inspector to the house where, if he were the murderer, he knew that 
part of his wife's remains were buried. He went into all the rooms with 
Dew, and they went into the cellar together. If he were a murderer, if he 
had buried those remains in the cellar, he knew the spot in the middle 
of the cellar, there under his very eye as he stood there ! Yet he never 
turned a hair, never showed the slightest sign of agitation, or fear, or 
terror. Was it possible that he was the murderer and was standing 
within three feet of the hole where his own hand must have put the remains 
if he was the murderer? Was it not beyond all powers of belief? Let 
the jury remember that on 8th July, at Albion House, a representative 
of the law had said to him at Hilldrop Crescent the same evening, " Crippen, 
I must find your wife." With those words ringing in his ears picture 
what Crippen 's thoughts must have been. Crippen must have realised 
that the lies he had told to cover up the scandal, the lies he had in his folly 
told, must have raised a mountain of prejudice, and formed clouds of 
suspicion which it would be for him to dispel. During the night he 
wondered how he could remove that mountain of prejudice and dispel those 
clouds. 

So he resolved to do what hundreds of men had done before. Feel- 
ing there was that high mountain of prejudice which he had erected by 
his lies against himself, he did what innocent men, threatened with a 
charge, have done before. He resolved in his folly to fly. Experience 
taught that the very threat of any criminal charge often made good, strong 
men take their own lives. He did not do that, or attempt it, but in 
his folly he resolved to fly. What more natural than that he should take 
with him his mistress? The rest followed as a matter of course the 
disguise, the shaving of his moustache, the dressing of Le Neve in boy's 
clothes. He went away from the inquiries of the officer as innocent men 
had fled before. For the reason that he had decided to fly, the adver- 

83 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Tobin 



tisement drafted by him in the presence of Inspector Dew was not inserted 
in the papers at all, because he ran away the next day, 9th July. 

He came now to what happened in the " Montrose" on the day of the 
arrests, 31st July. Was the statement, "I am sorry; the anxiety 
has been too much for me," which he then made, to weigh with the jury 
for a single instant when they considered their verdict? That, he ven- 
tured to submit, ought not to be a factor which they would weigh at all. 
What under the circumstances did the expression mean ? Only this : 
" Anxious, indeed, have I been, because ever since 8th July Chief Inspector 
Dew has had his suspicions, and I realise what suspicions have been aroused 
by the lies I have told, and that I cannot point out where Belle Elmore 

is." 

Here counsel read the two cards which were found upon Crippen at 
the time of his arrest, which were in Crippen's handwriting. Referring 
to one of the cards upon Crippen, " I have made up my mind to jump 
overboard to-night," counsel said the Crown suggested that the wording 
on the card indicated the remorse of a guilty man and his determination to 
jump overboard and commit suicide. Hitherto they had been asked to 
say these cards implied guilt. The long one, on the face of it, was 
apparently intended for Miss Le Neve, because it ended, " I have spoilt 
your life, and with last words of love. H." So that up till now the 
idea not unnaturally would be in the minds of the jury about these cards, 
"The guilty man resolves to take .away his life." But these cards were 
not written for the eye of Miss Le Neve at all. They were not written 
to convey to Miss Le Neve his intention to commit suicide. There would 
be no necessity to write those cards to Miss Le Neve, because they were 
together, occupying the same cabin. There must be some other reason. 

It was clear from Chief Inspector Dew's evidence that these two cards 
were written before Dew's arrival on board, and the explanation why they 
were written was this. They were both written in pursuance of a plot to 
enable Crippen to get hidden and smuggled ashore to escape up country, 
and there be afterwards joined by Le Neve when everything had blown 
over. Two days before the arrest Crippen had learned from the quarter- 
master that he (Dr. Crippen) was to be arrested on landing at Quebec. 
There was then no question of Miss Le Neve's arrest at all. He expected 
that he (Crippen) was alone to be arrested on landing at Quebec, and the 
quartermaster was persuaded, or pretended to be persuaded, to believe that 
Crippen was entirely innocent. The quartermaster at any rate pretended 
to be satisfied. That quartermaster would be the man who would be in 
charge of the unloading of the cargo at Quebec, where passengers would 
disembark and cargo be landed; and it was arranged that just before the 
vessel reached Quebec Crippen was to be concealed amongst the cargo in 
the ship, and that the longer card was to be found in his cabin indicating 
to those who found it that Crippen had jumped overboard from this vessel, 
the object being that there should be no strenuous search on board the ship 
while Crippen was hidden in the cargo; because one could well believe in 
the circumstances that the police might readily think and suspect what 
was wrong. Whether the quartermaster was a guilty participator, or only 
pretended to be, did not matter. The quartermaster, while supervising 
84 



Opening Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobin 

the landing of the cargo at Quebec, could readily smuggle Crippen through, 
and by that time it was hoped by Crippen that if the police had found the 
card indicating that he had jumped overboard they would have gone off 
and have ceased to maintain a watch upon the river. He then hoped to 
go up country, where Mi&s Le Neve, after all trouble had blown over, was 
to reach him. And was not that borne out by the shorter card, " Shall 
we wait until to-night about ten or eleven o'clock "? That shorter card 
was meant to be given to the quartermaster some few hours before the 
police came on board, and " ten or eleven o'clock " meant that he intended 
to be smuggled ashore about that time. Why, then, was it not handed to 
the quartermaster ? He (counsel) had elicited from Chief Inspector Dew that 
the boat was not intended to land cargo or passengers at Father Point. 
She passed Father Point about sixteen hours before she should arrive at 
Quebec. At some time or other during those sixteen hours it was intended 
that that card should be handed to the quartermaster, and it was not given 
to him because the arrest took place long before Crippen imagined there 
was any danger. The jury had to ask whether that explanation was true. 
If it was not, where was the need of writing those two cards for Miss Le 
Neve to read, when at any moment, whenever he chose, he was able to 
speak to her in the cabin alone without anybody overhearing ? 

He had dealt now with the general aspect of the case, and had only 
got to say a few words more upon the facts bearing on the medical aspect. 
The jury had to be satisfied as to the sex of the remains. Could the jury 
on the evidence he cared not what they suspected, because suspicion was 
not enough be satisfied, first of all, beyond all reasonable doubt whether 
those remains were the remains of a man or a woman 1 If they had any 
doubt about that, Crippen by law was entitled to a verdict of not guilty. 
Taking those remains by themselves, the witnesses for the Crown had 
admitted that it was impossible to say on anatomical grounds whether they 
were the remains of a man or a woman. Those grounds did not exist. 
Taking it by itself, the piece of skin might be that of a man. Who could 
tell? And it was a matter of life and death. If that mark on that piece 
of skin were the mark of an operation and that he disputed why should 
it not be the result of an operation on a man 1 Taking those remains by 
themselves, was he wrong in pressing strongly the claim that there ought to 
be the gravest doubt as to whether those were the remains of a man or 
woman 1 If there was that doubt, the Crown had not discharged the burden 
cast upon it. The clothing found with the remains formed no evidence 
whatever as to the sex of those remains, and as to whether they were those 
of a male or a female. The clothing, then, left the matter absolutely open. 

Passing to the question of Crippen' s anatomical knowledge ; counsel 
reminded the jury that Crippen, as a doctor, took his degree in the States, 
and admitted to Dew on 8th July that in his early student days he attended 
operations at London hospitals. But during those years he lived in London 
what was his practice? If Crippen had gone in for anatomical work or 
had practised surgery, the Crown, with their resources, would have found it 
out and given evidence of the fact. They found that, far from that, he was 
connected with Munyons for many years. This was not the kind of position 
that afforded a man the opportunity of practising anatomical work. The 

85 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Tobin 



prisoner would tell them that he never performed an operation in his life, 
never dissected a body. It was clear from the evidence of Mr. Pepper and 
Mr. Spilsbury that the hand -which dissected the body, whoever it was, the 
remains of which were found in the hole in the cellar, must have been 
accustomed to evisceration. The man whose hands did this gruesome work 
must have been possessed of considerable anatomical knowledge. The jury 
were entitled to apply their knowledge of the world as to what kind of man 
it must have been who cut up those remains. Was it possible that the work 
could have been done with so much skill by a man who had never done 
that work aa part of his practice during the whole of his professional work ? 
On the question of identification, the jury had to be satisfied that those 
remains were put into that hole in the cellar after 31st January; otherwise 
there was no case against the prisoner at the bar. In this most difficult, 
anxious case, trying it with all the ability and fairness which the jury 
were showing, could they say honestly, bearing in mind the result of an 
adverse verdict, were they able to say in their souls anything beyond this : 
we suspect, we guess? If they could not say with certainty that those 
remains were put into the hole after 31st of January, there was no case 
against the prisoner. He reminded them of what Mr. Pepper said, that 
it was not " within the reach of science to determine from its putrefaction 
the date of death." How, then, in this matter of doubt could they do more 
than suspect? Better a hundred guilty men should go free than one 
innocent man should suffer. If the remains had been there for years there 
was nothing to induce suspicion in the tenant of the house. 

He submitted there was the gravest doubt as to what part of the body 
the marked piece of skin and flesh came from, and whether any part of the 
depression upon it could be a scar. If there was no scar, it would not be 
from Belle Elmore's body. He did not forget the reasons that the witnesses 
for the Crown gave for saying that the flesh came from the lower part of the 
abdomen ; but, on the other hand, there were characteristics admittedly 
absent whose presence would have made the matter absolutely clear. There 
were not the tendinous intersections crossing from the navel and those 
which generally existed below the navel; and there was not the white 
vertical line from the chest downwards* where the tendons united. 

But if they were satisfied that the piece came from the lower part of 
the abdomen, they had still to decide whether any part of the depression 
was the scar of an operation. Mr. Pepper agreed that one side of the 
depression was due to a folding of the piece of skin. The other side was 
a scar. His case was that both sides were the result of folding and pressure. 
That there was considerable pressure must be clear, as there was imprinted 
on the skin the pattern of some material placed in the hole with the remains. 
If the depression was admittedly caused by such pressure on one side, why 
not upon the other? Was this not far too doubtful a matter for them to 
say that they were clear beyond doubt that this depression was a scar? He 
had no desire to dwell on the number of opportunities the doctors for the 
Crown had of seeing these remains, but it was perhaps unfortunate and 
he conveyed no imputation in what he was saying that long before they 
found that so-called scar on 8th August they had heard that Belle Elmore 
had had an operation. Might not an opinion as to whether there was a 
86 



Opening Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobln 

scar or not quite unwittingly be influenced by the information that Belle 
Elm ore had in fact undergone an operation? In Mr. Pepper's opinion, the 
navel was originally upon that /piece of skin, and was removed by operation. 
Well, so far from there having been a removal of the navel of Mrs. Crippen, 
Mrs. Martinetti said that once, when she was visiting them in the bungalow, 
she saw the mark on the lower part of the abdomen going up as far as the 
navel. He put it clearly to Mrs. Martinetti, " Are you sure that you saw 
the navel itself? Yes, quite sure." The jury must not let that fact 
escape them. If Mrs. Martinetti saw the navel, the operation Mrs. Crippen 
underwent was not one which involved the removal of the navel, and this 
piece of skin was not Belle Elmore's. 

He came now to the last point, the poison. On 17th January Dr. 
Crippen ordered, and on 19th January he obtained, five grains of hyoscin 
hydrobromide. He need not have signed the poisons book at all, but openly 
he left the record of his purchase and his name at a shop where he was 
known. He bought it to reduce it to a liquid, and to use it in the tiny 
tabloids he prepared for patients. Doctors did not seem to use hyoscin in 
England, but he supposed that American ways were different from ours. 
Dr. Crippen did use it. He had little bottles, each containing about three 
hundred of these tabloids, all ready for being impregnated with different 
kinds of drugs. Three hundred tabloids sounded a good deal, but as the 
dose was sixteen tabloids a day, the bottle would just last twenty days. 
That was the way he used the drug after he had bought it, and that was 
the way he continued to use it after Belle Elmore disappeared. Was the 
alkaloid found in the remains hyoscin? Dr. Willcox said there was not 
enough of it to use what he said would be the most certain test of all to 
ascertain which mydriatic vegetable alkaloid it was. As he did not apply 
this test, he asked the jury to say that the matter remained in far too much 
doubt whether, even if this was a vegetable alkaloid at all, it was hyoscin 
rather than hyoscyamin or atropine. He would go further and ask the 
jury to say that there was not enough to enable a man to determine whether 
the alkaloid found in the body was vegetable, introduced during life, or 
animal, produced after death by the natural process of putrefaction. 

He had attempted no eloquent appeal on behalf of the prisoner. It 
was better to confine oneself simply and solely to the facts, and on those 
facts he asked them to say they were not satisfied that the Crown had 
beyond all reasonable doubt demonstrated that these remains were the 
remains of a woman at all, and still less had identified these remains as 
I>art of the body of Belle Elmore. 



Evidence for the Defence. 

HAWLET HARVEY CRIPPEN (prisoner, on oath), examined by Mr. 
HUNTLT JENKINS I am forty-eight years old. I am an American by 
birth. I am a doctor of medicine of the Cleveland Homoeopathic Hospital 
in the United States of America. I went through a theoretical course of 
surgery. I have never gone through a practical course of surgery, and 

87 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Hawley Harvey Crippen 

I have never performed a post-mortem examination in my life. I have 
made the eye my special subject, and also the ear, nose, and throat. I 
have been twice married. My second wife gave me Cora Turner as 
her name when I first met her in Brooklyn. I afterwards found that her 
real name was Mackaniotzki. When I first met her she was living under 
the protection of a man by the name of C. C. Lincoln. She had never had 
any children to my knowledge. I believe she had had some miscarriage, 
or something of that kind, because she wast being attended to by the man 
I was assistant to for some trouble. She never had any children by me. 
I cannot give the exact date when I married her, but it was about 1892, 
about seventeen years ago. After our marriage we lived first of all in 
St. Louis. I came to this country for the first time after I married her 
in April, about twelve years ago, and she followed me in August. Our 
first apartments were in South Crescent, which is now pulled down and 
turned into a big boarding-house for the people that Rollings worths' 
employ, I believe, just off Tottenham Court Road. I think we lived there 
for about close on a year. We went to live in Hilldrop Crescent about 
1905, about five years ago. We had moved from South Crescent to 
Guildford Street, and from there to Store Street, and from there to 
Hilldrop Crescent. While we were living in Guildford Street I paid a 
visit to America. I think I was away from November, 1899, to April, 
1900. I left my wife in a boarding-house in Guildford Street. 

Up to the time you paid that visit to America, had you lived on 
friendly terms with your wife? Yes, except that she was always rather 
hasty in her temper. 

I mean, you lived in strict relationship as husband and wife? Yes. 
The time I referred to in my statement that I made to Inspector Dew 
the time that I referred to her coming over from America and saying 
that she had met some fine men on board was the first time she came 
over ; that was previous to this. Until I returned from my visit to 
America we had always lived on friendly terms. Coming back from 
America I joined my wife at Guildford Street. I did not notice any 
change in her manner at first. Soon after that we moved to Store Street, 
and then I began to notice a change. She was> always finding fault with 
me, and every night she took some opportunity of quarrelling with me, 
so that we went to bed in rather a temper with each other. A little later 
on, after I found that this continued and she apparently did not wish to 
be familiar with me, I asked her what the matter was. She told me 
then that she had met Bruce Miller, and that he had been taking her 
out while; I was away, and that she had got very fond of him, and that 
she did not care for me any more. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is 1900, is it? No, I think that 
would be 1904. 

Examination continued It was before we moved to Hilldrop Crescent ; 
it was between 1903 and 1904. I should say it would be, say, six months 
after my return from America, but I do not like to be certain about these 
dates, because it is such a long time ago. I think we lived in Store 
Street about a couple of years, and then, in 1905, we went to Hilldrop 
88 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Crescent. It would be between 1902 and 1903 that we moved from 
Guildford Street to Store Street. 

I just want to get this clear before the jury. How long after your 
return from America did you notice this change in your wife's manner? 
About six or seven months. I noticed the change beginning right away, 
but it was about six or seven months afterwards that I found out what 
the trouble was. She told me that Bruce Miller was a music-hall artist, 
that he had some sort of automatic orchestra. She told me that he was 
still in town, and he ame to visit her at times. I never met Mr. Bruce 
Miller. I told my wife I thought it was very strange, although I had 
seen this coming for a long time, for a previous trouble we had had before 
I moved away from South Crescent. I still lived with her not as my 
wife, but I still lived with her. We occupied the same bed until we 
moved to Hilldrop Crescent. That was one of the reasons why we moved 
there, because when we lived in Store Street we could only have the 
one sleeping room. At Hilldrop Crescent we had separate rooms. 

Before your friends, and before strangers as well, what was your 
demeanour towards your wife and hers towards you? It was always 
agreed that we should treat each other as if there had never been any 
trouble. Of course, I hoped that she would give up this idea of hers at 
some time. I first became connected with Munyons about sixteen years 
ago. I was first in a position in their employ, and afterwards I became 
the general manager. When I was general manager I acted as advisory 
physician, and had charge of the chemical laboratory besides. I should 
say that I was in that capacity for about five or six years. I came over 
to this country for Munyons, then I went back to America and stayed 
there until the time I have mentioned, and my services then ceased. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The last time I was in America was 
about 1901 or 1902. That is the time I am speaking of when I say that 
I was there from November to April or May. 

Examination continued I have been in the habit of purchasing drugs. 
I always made up their prescription for them when I was in America. I 
have been in the habit of purchasing drugs in this country not for them, 
but for myself, and also for the other firms that I have been with. Among- 
drugs that I have purchased I have purchased considerable amounts of 
different poisons aconite, belladonna, rhus tox., gelsemium, and also 
those on the list that I got from Lewis & Burrows. The homoeopathic 
drugs I have already mentioned I purchased from Ashtons. Those 
are the only two chemists from whom I have been in the habit of purchas- 
ing drugs. I have for years been familiar with the drug hyoscin. I 
first heard of it when I caJne over to England in 1885 ; I learned the use 
of it in the Royal Bethlem Hospital for the Insane. It is used a very 
great deal in America, especially in insane asylums ; it is also used in 
ophthalmic clinics. I have used it as a nerve remedy in a homoeopathic 
preparation, that is, reduced to extremely minute doses. I remember 
purchasing some hyoscin on 19th January. 

Had you ever used hyoscin before? Yes. 

I mean in this country? No, not in this country. I purchased it for 
treating nervous diseases, nerve cases. It was sold to me in the form of 

89 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

crystals. I then dissolved it in alcohol, and then I dissolved 5 grains in 
an ounce of -water, that is, in 480 drops, giving to one drop 5/480ths of a 
grain. I used four drops of this, which would equal 20/480ths or 0'041 
of a grain, in conjunction with another mixture consisting of gelsemium, 
assafoetida, and some other homoeopathic preparation. This, with a 
drachm of the other mixture, I used for medicating 300 small discs to 
make one bottle of a preparation sent to each patient ; that would be about 
150 doses; two tablets a dose would equal l/3600ths of a grain as a dose. 
The bottles would be labelled with the dose, and packed in a little heavy 
pasteboard case. The dose would be in the form of small sugared discs. 
A dose would consist of two discs, and the actual dose would be approxi- 
mately l/3600ths of a grain, extremely minute. That is what I did with 
this hyoscin that I purchased. I think I dispensed about two- thirds of the 
hyoscin that I purchased on 19th January. I might mention that, besides 
using it for nerve cases 1 , I also found it useful for spasmodic coughs and 
spasmodic asthma. 

At the time you purchased it can you recollect any particular person 
that you required it for? Well, besides my business of Munyons, I had 
also another business in which I handled about two hundred letters it is 
extremely difficult to remember names. I think I can remember one. 
Sweeney no, M 'Sweeney. I remember the dinner party of 31st January. 
My wife had very frequently threatened to leave me before that time. 

At the time she threatened to leave you, would she be in a calm 
temper or in a rage? In a rage. 

Generally speaking, were the tempers that she got in for trivial 
matters or something serious? Very trivial matters ; she was always finding 
fault about trivial things. On 31st January Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti came 
to dinner with us, arriving somewhere between six and seven o'clock. I had 
taken them an invitation on behalf of my wife. 

While they were with you did anything take place which upset your 
wife? Yes, Mr. Martinetti wanted to go upstairs, and, as I thought he 
knew the house perfectly well, having been there many times during 
eighteen months, I thought it was quite all right that he should go up 
liimself. When he came down he seemed to have caught a chill, and after 
they went away I was blamed for not going up with him. They left some- 
where between one and two o'clock, I think; I know I had a lot of trouble to 
iind a carriage for them. Immediately after they had left my wife got into 
a very great rage with me, and blamed me for not having gone upstairs 
with Mr. Martinetti. She said a great many things I do not recollect 
them all she abused me, and said some pretty strong words to me; she 
said she had had about enough of this that if I could not be a gentleman 
she would not stand it any longer, and she was going to leave me. She 
also said something that she had not said before that after she had gone 
it would be necessary to cover up any scandal that there might be by her 
leaving me, and I might do it the very best way I could. 

As a matter of fact, did you find that she had gone? When I came 
home the next day I came home about half -past seven, my usual time for 
coming home 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is very important. I understand 
90 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

you have told us all that took place on the night of the 31st? That is as 
near as I recollect. 

Examination continued Then you know nothing more until you came 
home on the evening of the 1st and found she had gone, is that right? 
That is right. I did not even see her the next morning. We retired very 
late, and it was the usual thing that I was the first one up and out of the 
house before she was ever up at all. On 1st February I went to business 
as usual, and I returned to the house about half -past seven. I went to see 
Mrs. Martinetti some time during that day, as I was anxious about the 
. chill that Mr. Martinetti had caught. The conversation that Mrs. Martinetti 
has related took place between her and me. I asked how Paul was, and 
she asked how Belle was. On returning home about half-past seven that 
night I found that the house was vacant. I have heard the evidence of 
Mrs. Martinetti, Miss May, Mrs. Smythson, Miss Curnow, my landlord, 
and Dr. Burroughs, to the effect that I said that my wife had left me, 
that she afterwards became ill, and that subsequently her death took place. 
I admit all that. 

Were those statements true or false? The statements that I made 
were false. 

Why did you make those statements 1 ? She told me I must do the best 
I could to cover up the scandal, and I made those statements for that 
reason ; I wanted to hide anything regarding her departure from me the 
best I could, both for my sake and for hers. I recollect Inspector Dew 
coming to my office and my making a statement to him. 

Was the statement that you made to Inspector Dew a false or a true 
statement? It waa quite true. Inspector Dew was very imperative in 
pressing upon me that I must produce my wife, or otherwise I would be 
in serious trouble. He also said that if I did not produce her very quickly 
the statements I had made would be in the newspapers the first thing I 
knew. I made up my mind next morning to go to Quebec, and, in fact, 
I did go. On the boat I made the acquaintance of a quartermaster there. 
On the second day before we arrived at Quebec, as I was sitting by the 
wheel-house, the quartermaster came and said he had a letter he wanted 
to give me about three o'clock in the afternoon. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is the quartermaster coming or not? 
Mr. HUNTLY JENKINS No, my lord, we have not got him. 
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Then I do not know that we can have this 
conversation. 

Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS If I may say so, I respectfully agree that we 
cannot have the conversation. Perhaps I might put it in this way. 

(To Witness) Did you enter into an arrangement with the quarter- 
master? Yes, I entered into an arrangement with the quartermaster to 

hide me, as he told me 

We cannot have the conversation 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You had better have the whole of it if you 
have part of it. 

(To Witness} He told you what? He told me that the captain knew 
who I was and also who Miss Le Neve was, and that I was to be arrested 
by the police at Quebec. He also told me that I must leave a note behind 

91 



Hawley Harvey Crippen . 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

me saying that I had jumped overboard, and that in the middle 
night he would make a splash in the water and tell the captain that 1 i. 
gone. 

Examination continued As a matter of fact, I wrote one card that 
same day, and that night he took me downstairs, but somebody came 
along and prevented usi from going down they saw us, so I kept that card, 
and he said he would put me down the next day. I then wrote the short 
card next morning, just a short time before Inspector Dew cam on board. 
The long card was to be put on my pillow in the berth in the cabin . I had 
arranged with Missi Le Neve, as the quartermaster said that there was no 
charge against her that they did not want her at all I had arranged with 
her that when I got ashore safely I gave her an address in the States where 
she was to write to me and let me know when everything was all right 
and she could join me. 

What does this mean, " Shall we wait until to-night about ten or 
eleven o'clock, if not, what time " 1 The night before I had arranged that, 
as he had failed to get me hidden away that same night, he would hide 
me the next night, just when we got to Quebec or a short time before we 
got to Quebec. As he had settled no time I wrote this little card to give 
to him to find out what time. I understood we should arrive at Quebec at 
twelve or one o'clock at night; that was what the steward on the boat told 
me. 

Was Inspector Dew's coming on board at Father Point a surprise to 
you? It was at Father Point well, I did not expect him at all. I thought 
there had been a cable to the Quebec police; I did not expect Inspector 
Dew; that was a surprise to me. 

Inspector Dew says that you said on arrest, " I am not sorry; the 
anxiety has been too much." What were you referring to then? I was 
referring to this, that I expected to be arrested from all these lies I had told ; 
I thought probably it would cast such a suspicion upon me, and perhaps 
they would keep me in prison I do not know how long, perhaps for a year 
until they found the missing woman. I said to Inspector Dew, " It is 
only fair to say that she knows nothing about it I never told her 
anything." 

What were you referring to when you made use of that observation ? 
I had never told Miss Le Neve anything about my talking to my wife before 
she went away about this scandal; I had told her that my wife had gone 
away, and I told her afterwards that she was dead. These were the only 
two things that I told Miss Le Neve. Consequently she never knew anything 
about all these letters and lies that I had disseminated. I did not give any 
explanation to Inspector Dew regarding the two cards, because, while 
Inspector Dew went down to see Miss Le Neve, the chief inspector, or the 
man who was with him, told me, " We deal very differently with people 
in Canada when we arrest them to what they do in England; we tell them 
that they must not say anything." He added, " Now don't you say a word 
on anything cut your tongue out have nothing to say." 

With regard to the money that was put into the Charing Cros Bank, 
my wife had no money of her own ; all the money that ever went into the 
bank was what I put in. The jewellery which she was possessed of I 
92 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

bought as an investment when I was in America. Besides that jewellery 
I think she had a watch, and I think she had one or two rings that she had 
before we were married probably given to her by the other man. I bought 
in New York the jewellery that has been produced in the course of this case. 
I supplied the money for all my wife's clothes and all her furs. I never 
knew what she did have, because I gave her money with a free hand, and 
she bought as she liked; in fact, after she went away I was surprised to 
find what she did have. I was not short of money at all in January of this 
year; I had plenty of money coming in. I always paid my rent regularly, 
and I never ran any bills of any kind in the way of tradesmen's bills. I 
do not think my wife knew of my relations with Miss Le Neve, because she 
always treated Miss Le Neve with the greatest courtesy when she came 
into my office. There was no obstacle ever put in my way if I wanted to 
go and see Miss Le Neve. My time was my own; I went as I liked, and I 
often stayed away from business whole days at a time. I told Miss Le 
Neve that if ever my wife went away and got a divorce I should marry her 
certainly. 

Was she perfectly satisfied with the position she occupied ? She seemed 
to be very happy. 

Now, I just want to put this to you, did your wife as a fact have a 
scar? She did. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It was in the lower part of the abdomen, 
from the pubic bone upwards towards the navel, in the middle line. 

Examination continued That scar was caused by an operation for 
ovariotomy. My wife had a navel. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I believe that operation was done about 
twelve years ago; it was shortly before we came to England the first 
time. The scar was about 4 inches long, I believe. It was a small scar, 
because only the ovaries were removed. It came very close to the navel. 

Examination continued My wife bleached her hair, and I sometimes 
helped her. She was very particular with it, and she applied the bleach- 
ing fluid probably every four or five days. She was very anxious that 
nobody should ever know that she had any dark hair at all. She was a 
woman who was very particular about her hair. Only the tiniest portions 
of the hairs at the roots after they began to grow could be seen to be dark. 

Did you ever at any time administer any hyoscin to your wife? 
Never. 

Those remains that were found at your house in Hilldrop Crescent 
have you any idea whose they were? I beg your pardon. 

The remains that were found in the cellar at Hilldrop Crescent 1 

I had no idea. I knew nothing about them till I came back to England. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That concludes the evidence-in-chief , I under- 
stand ? 

Mr. HUNTLT JENKINS Yes, my lord. 

The Court adjourned. 



93 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Fourth Day Friday, 21st October, 1910. 

HAWLEY HARVEY CRIPPEN (recalled), cross-examined by Mr. Mum 
On the early morning of the 1st February you were left alone in your 
house with your wife? Yes. 

She was alive? She was. 

And well? She was. 

Do you know of any person in the world who has seen her alive 
since? I do not. 

Do you know of any person in the world who has ever had a letter 
from her since? I do not. 

Do you know of any person in the world who can prove any fact 
snowing that she ever left that house alive? Absolutely not; I have told 
Mr. Dew exactly all the facts. 

At what hour did you last see her on the 1st February? I think it 
would be about between two and three some time that we retired; that 
would be the last I saw her. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You mean on the 1st February? Yes. 

After the party? After the party. 

Between 2 and 3 a.m. on the 1st February? Between then; I cannot 
say exactly what time it was. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is near enough. 

By Mr. Mum Did you breakfast at home? I did. 

Who prepared your breakfast ? I prepared my own breakfast ; I nearly 
always did. 

Who usually prepared the breakfast? I did myself. 

Did your wife as a rule come down to breakfast? Very seldom. We 
were usually very late in retiring, and I was off probably at half-past 
eight in the morning. 

We have heard that you were a kind and attentive husband? I was. 

Preparing the breakfast in the morning, did you usually take her a 
cup of tea? Not often; once in a great while I took her a cup of coffee, 
but very seldom. 

That she would take upon an empty stomach? Yes. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Coffee, you say; not cocoa? Yes, coffee. 
We never had tea in the morning. 

By Mr. Mum When did you come home? I cannot say to the exact 
hour that night, but I generally came home at 7,30; that is my general 
home hour. 

What time did you come home on that night when you say you did 
not find your wife there? The nearest I should say is, it would be my 
usual time, about 7.30. 

Do you not recollect on that momentous night what time it was you 
came home? I would not like to say. It was somewhere near 7.30, it 
might have been 7.25; it might have been 7.35; but it was close on 
to 7.30. 

Would you kindly attend closely to my question and see if you can 
94 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

answer it. On that important night in your life, do you not recollect 
what time it was that you got home 1 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-^-! think he has answered that. He says, 
" As near as I can say, 7.30. It might be 7.25, or 7.35." He has answered 
you. Of course, you can press it further, but he has answered the 
question. 

Mr. MUIR If your lordship pleases. 

(To Witness) Did you tell Inspector Dew that you got home between 
five and six? I do not remember telling him that hour. 

Listen, " I came to business the next morning, and when I went 
home between 5 and 6 p.m. I found she had gone." Is that right? If I 
said that to him, that was probably right. I cannot trace it back. 
That was a Tuesday ? A Tuesday, yes. 
The 1st February? Yes. 

Where did you think your wife had gone? I supposed, as she had 
always been talking about Bruce Miller to me, that she had gone there. 
That was the only thing I could make. 
That is to America? To America. 

Have you made inquiries ? No. 

As to what steamers were going to America on or about that date? 
No, I have not. 

At no time? At no time. 
Not since your arrest? Not at all. 
What? Not at any time. 

Not to find out whether there was some steamer sailing for America 
on which there was a woman answering the description of your wife? I 
have not. 

Nobody has made those inquiries? No. 

Was there any steamer leaving on that Tuesday? That I do not 
know. 

Or on the Wednesday? There usually are steamers on Wednesdays 
and Saturdays, and at one time there was a Friday steamer; whenever 
I have gone over to America it has either been on Wednesday, Saturday, or 
Friday. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You were asked about this period ; you 
say you know of steamers on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Do you know 
of any others? I believe there is a steamer on Friday. I am not speaking 
from my late inquiries; I am only speaking from what I know from my 
previous inquiries and voyages. 

By Mr. Mura You have made no inquiries at all? I have made no 
inquiries at all. 

Going to America on the 1st February, did your wife take any of 
her fura with her? That I could not say. She had any quantity of furs 
any quantity of dresses. 

Did she take any of her boxes with her? I believe there is one missing. 
There were a lot of trunks and boxes in the house; I did not know how 
many, because she bought several lately well, not lately, but early last 
fall. I believe she bought two or three boxes. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must kindly listen to the question; 

95 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

it is a very important one. You are not asked whether she bought them. 
Are you able to say whether she took any boxes with her? I am not able 
to say definitely. 

By Mr. Mura Is there a cabstand near your house? There is one 
round the corner somewhere round in York Road there is a cabstand. 

The cabstand, I suppose, where you went to get a cab for Mr. Martin- 
etti? Well, I picked that up on the street. 

But you went there first to see whether there was one? Yes, I went 
down there first. 

That is the place where you are usually in the habit of going for a 
cab? Yes; there are seldom any there at that time of night. That is 
the reason I picked up one on the street. 

But in the day time is that where you get a cab from? Yes. There 
are usually cabs there in the day time 

You have been living there for 5 years ? Yes. 

Did you goto the cabstand to inquire? I made no inquiries whatever. 

Please listen to the question. Did you go to the cabstand to inquire 
whether any cabman had come to take away a box for your wife? I did 
not. 

At any time? At no time. 

Not since your arrest? No. 

Had you got neighbours at 39 Hilldrop Crescent on either side? 
Yes, we had neighbours on either side. 

Have inquiries been made of the neighbours to know whether a cab 
or a box was seen to leave your house on the 1st February? I have made 
none. 

And, so far as you know, none have been made? Not so far as I 
know. 

You do not suggest that your wife, on a voyage to America in 
February, would walk away from the house? I am sure I do not know 
what she would do. She was a very impulsive woman. 

But you have made no inquiries ? I have made no inquiries. 

I suppose the usual tradesmen came to your house ? We had no trades- 
men calling, except the milkman on Sundays. 

How did the milk that you used in the household get into the house? 
We did not use the ordinary milk ; we used condensed milk. 

The baker how did the bread get into the house? Well, we did have 
a baker. Oh, the milkman brought the bread probably about two or 
three times a week. 

Have you inquired of the milkman whether he saw your wife alive 
after you had left the house on that morning of the 1st February? I have 
already said that I have made no inquiries. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That answer covers everything; you can 
make any comment on it you like, Mr. Muir. The specific matter is, of 
course, most important. He has said definitely that never at any time 
has he made or caused to be made any inquiries whatever. 

By Mr. Mum It would be most important for your defence in this case 
on the charge of murder if any person could be found who saw your wife 
alive after the Martinettis saw her alive; you realise that? I do. 
96 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippcn 

And you have made no inquiries at all? I have not conducted my 
own defence. 

Of tradesmen, or neighbours, or cabmen. You say you have not 
conducted your own defence? I have not. 

You have been consulted about it, I suppose? Certainly. 

Did you suggest inquiries of that kind? I did not. 

Mr. TOBIN My lord, can my friend ask about what passes between 
him and his solicitors? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think he is entitled to that general question. 
In reply to Mr. Muir he has 1 said, "I have made no inquiries, and as 
far as I know no one has made any." I think Mr. Muir is entitled to 
ask anything that is not confidential between him and his solicitor. 

By Mr. MUIR You did not suggest it? I did not suggest it. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You need not answer any question as to 
what you told your solicitor, but you must answer this question which 
Mr. Muir puts to you. Have you made any suggestion as to inquiries being 
made anywhere ? I have always replied that there have been no inquiries 
so far as I know. 

No, no. Have you made any suggestion to Mr. Newton or any one 
as to inquiries being made anywhere ? That is a point that did not occur 
to me, so I have not made any such suggestions. 

By Mr. Mum Did you know that any such inquiry would be fruit- 
less? I know nothing of the kind. 

Supposing your wife had written for her furs and jewels, what would 
have happened? I would have kept them. I paid for them, and I should 
not have given them up after leaving me. 

Did you know that she would not write for them? I did not. 

What money did you allow your wife, or give her? I did not allow 
her any special money; I gave her with a free hand whatever she seemed 
to want at any time; if she asked me for money she always had it 2, 
3, and 4. 

Sums like that? Sums like that, yes; I have even given her as high 
as 35 to buy some special things with. 

Up to March of 1909 you had been putting by money you and she? 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How long ago was it that you gave her 
35 to buy something special? When she bought that ermine cape. 

When was that? It was back in about four years ago three years 
ago, I think. 

Then, just to take Mr. Muir's question 2, 3, and 4 is the sort 
of money that you would be giving her before she disappeared? Yes. 

By Mr. Mum Had you ceased putting by money by way of deposit 
in March, 1909; that is the last deposit? Yes. 

December, 1909, notice of withdrawal was given? So I am told. 

You knew of it, did you not? I did not know of it. 

Yo,u did not? I did not; the first I knew of it was when Mr. Newton 
applied to the bank. 

November, 1909, your 3 a week from Munyons stopped? Yes. 

January, 1910, you were not quite so well off as you had been? Well, 
I think my commissions amounted to pretty nearly the same thing, if not 
possibly more ; I would not be sure about it. 

97 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Did you tell Inspector Dew that the commission business did not 
pay? It did not pay me, because it was too much trouble to me for what 
I got out of it. 

Where do you suppose your wife was going to get the money to pay 
her passage to America? She always had plenty of money apparently. 

Did you give her any? I did not give her any, no; I asked her if 
she was provided with money, if she wished any, and sihe said, "No, she 
wanted nothing off me." 

You asked her if she wanted any money? Yes. 

When did you ask her that? I asked her at the time she said she 
was going to leave me. 

How many times had she said that she was going to leave you ? Quite 
a number of times numerous 1 times. 

A great number of times ? A great number of times. 

Did you always on those occasions ask her whether she wanted money 
to go away with? I never paid any attention, because she had never 
carried it to such an extent. 

She said she did not want any money from you? Yes. 

Were you in want of money? I was not. 

What did you do with the money that you got from pawning your 
wife's jewels? I used it in paying for advertising a new scheme I was 
starting a new preparation I was putting on the market. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you mean the whole 200 the <80 
and the 115? Yes, I probably used most of it. 

You are not asked " probably " ; you were asked what you used the 
money for? For paying for the advertising. 

By Mr. MUIR Anything else? Well, I also bought some new dental 
instruments with it. 

Were any of those matters 1 urgent matters'? Not at all, no. 

You are quite sure about that? Quite so, because I only contracted 
for the advertising after I had pawned the diamonds ; the first advertising 
did not appear until a couple of weeks after. 

There wasi no urgency about it at all? Not at all. 

Why were you in such a hurry to pawn your wife's earrings and 
marquise rings? Because when I contracted for the advertising I would 
have to pay cash. 

When did you contract? About a few days 1 after that. 

A few days after the 2nd February? Yes. 

Why, then, were you in such a hurry to pawn your wife's jewellery? 
I think I have already answered that. 

What? Why were you in such a hurry to pawn your wife's jewels? 
Because I had already this scheme in my mind, and as soon as I made my 
final arrangements I put the money in hand. 

You already had this scheme in your mind, had you? Yes. 

For how long? For at least two months. I had been preparing my 
advertising and getting my bottles together and my solutions. 

Before the 19th January you had this scheme in your mind? Yes. 

And you wanted money for it? Before the 19th long before that. 

You wanted money for it? Oh, I could have got the money without 
doing that. 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crlppen 

You wanted money for it 1 I could have got the money without doing 
that ; I could have raised it at the bank, and I also had another business 
from which I could have drawn money for it if I had wanted it. 

And on the 2nd February you began to raise money for it on your 
wife's jewels? Quite so. 

Had you never pawned jewellery of your wife's before? I never pawned 
my wife' si jewellery before. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Had you ever pawned jewellery before? 
I had pawned jewellery before, yes. 

By Mr. MUIR Of your wife's? No, of my own. 

Were those two occasions, the 2nd and 9th February of this year, 
the only two occasions on which you had ever pawned jewellery of your 
wife's? I refuse to accept the idea that it was my wife's. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Jewellery that your wife had been in the 
habit of wearing? That she had been in the habit of wearing, yes ; I have 
pawned jewellery before. 

By Mr. MUIR Of hers ? No, it was some that I wore myself. 

Those were the only two occasions? Those were the only two occa- 
sions. 

Had you forgotten that you had pawned that jewellery on the 8th 
July? No. 

You remember it quite well? Quite well. 

Did you say this to Inspector Dew, " I have never pawned or sold 
anything belonging to her before or after she left "? I did, but I did not 
consider it was her property; I considered myself justified in answering 
in that way. 

You got bank notes for those jewels? Yes. 

You changed those bank notes through Miss Curnow? Yes. 

Of your offices in Albion House? Yes, Miss Curnow always went 
to the bank for me. 

Did you say this to Inspector Dew, " Any notes that I have changed 
through any one in this building were in connection with my business "? 
It was done in connection with my business!. 

What was your business that you changed these notes in connection 
with? The dental business. 

You had in your mind, had you, that the notes you were speaking of 
were notes that were the proceeds of that jewellery ? Quite so. 

And when the inspector asked you whether you had changed any notes 
through any one in that building, that is how you answered it? Because 
the money was used in connection with the dental business. 

Then you told the truth, according to your view, about the jewellery? 
Yes. 

Did you proceed to account for your wife's jewellery by producing 
those exhibits which you showed to Inspector Dew at the house? I showed 
him some that she left. 

That she left behind? Yes. 

And did you tell the inspector that she had other jewellery, and must 
have taken that with her? She did have some, as I have already said ; she 
had some rings and a watch that belonged to her before she was married. 

99 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Did you intend the inspector to believe that you were accounting for 
the -whole of your wife's jewellery? Certainly. 

And said not a word about those two pieces of jewellery that you had 
pawned? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is comment, Mr. Muir. 

Mr. Mum If your lordship pleases. 

(To Witness) The complaint that your wife made on the night of the 
dinner party with the Martinettis was a most unreasonable complaint? 
Well, I considered it so. 

No reason at all why you should go to show Mr. Martinetti to the 
lavatory ? No. 

He knew his way quite well? Quite well. 

And that was the sole cause of your wife resolving to leave you? Well, 
it was a thing that had been pending evidently for a long time. 

Had she any other cause' for leaving you? That is the only cause I 
know. 

When you found she had gone, you say you eat down to think how 
you could cover up the scandal? Yes. 

With her friends? With her friends. 

And the members of the Guild? Yes. 

She had a great many friends? Well, not a large circle of friends; 
there were only a few who were really the intimate friends. 

By the LOED CHIEF JUSTICE She had a few very intimate friends? 
Yes. 

By Mr. MUIR Those we have seen? Yes. 

And Mrs. Nash, another? Yes. 

Whom we have not seen? Yes. 

Mrs. Ginette, in America? Yes. 

Mrs. Eugene Stratton? Yes. 

Those were all intimate friends of hers? All intimate friends. 

You did your best to cover up the scandal? I did. 

It involved you in a great deal of trouble? Well, that has already 
been acknowledged. 

But that is the fact? That is the fact. 

I want to clear up one or two incidents. Just look at that. (Handing 
exhibit 32.) Is that your letter written on Sunday, 20th March, at 39 
Hilldrop Crescent? It is. 

At that time was Ethel Le Neve living with you at that address? I 
would not be sure whether she came permanently to live with me at that 
time or not, but she had been off and on there. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE About what date do you put it that Miss 
Le Neve came to live with you ; it will be a very important date ? It was 
shortly before Easter. 

Easter, we are told, was somewhere about the end of March? The 
27th, I think. 

We shall have to have it asked presently, and I should like to have 

it fixed now, when she came, so that we may have it in our minds. When 

do you say Miss Le Neve came to live at Hilldrop Crescent? The first time 

that she came there was 2nd February, the Wednesday night, on 2nd 

100 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crip pen 

February. From that time on she was with me probably two or three nights 
or perhaps more out of the week, but when she came to stay permanently 
I would not like to say, except that I know it was shortly before Easter; 
because, when she had her clothes removed from Mrs. Jackson's to my 
house I am sure it was some time before Easter, but what the day was I 
would not like to say. 

By Mr. Mum Mrs. Jackson has said that on 12th March Ethel Le 
Neve ceased to live at her house altogether. Is that the date on which 
she came to you? I will not dispute that date, because I know it was some 
time before Easter; but she had been there at least two or three or four 
nights out of the week regularly before that. 

Just let me interpose this, in consequence of what you have just said. 
On the night of 2nd February did Ethel Le Neve sleep at Hilldrop Crescent ? 
She did. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must press him upon that, for a par- 
ticular reason. 

Mr. MUIR You are sure of that? I am sure of that. 

Now, I want to come to the letter which is in your hand. Was it 
written by you ? It was. 

At Hilldrop Crescent, on Sunday, the 20th March? Yes. 

Was Ethel Le Neve living with you at that time ? She was ; at least, 
I am sure she was there that Sunday; well, I have already acknowledged 
that I would accept that date that she came to live with me. 

The 12th March? The 12th March; so she must have been there on 
that Sunday. 

" Dear Clara and Paul Please forgive me not running in during the 
week, but I have really been so u,pset by very bad news from Belle that I 
did not feel equal to talking with any one. And now I have just had a 
cable saying she is so dangerously ill with double pleuro-pneumonia that 
I am considering if I had not better go at once " ? " Go over at once." 

" I don't want to worry you with my troubles, but I felt I must explain 
why I had not been to see you. Will you try and run in during the week 
and have a chat. Hope you are both well. With love and best wishes." 
Had you, when you wriie that letter, arranged to go to Dieppe with Ethel 
Le Neve for Easter? Yes, I believe I had. 

And did you want to wipe your wife off the slate before you went? It 
was not a question of that kind. It was a question, as I have already 
explained in my statement, that I felt something was necessary to stop all 
the worry that I was having with the inquiries. 

Did you want to announce your wife's death before you started for 
your holiday with Ethel Le Neve on the following Thursday? I do not 
think that follows as a logical sequence. 

That is what you intended to do at the time you wrote that letter? 
I do not know whether I had at that time fixed the time when I would say 
that the other cable had arrived or not ; I would not say that. 

Now, Mrs. Martinetti was one of your wife's dearest friends? She 
was a very intimate friend; they were probably with us once a week 
either we were at their house or they were at our house. 

101 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

And Mrs. Martinetti had a great affection for your wife? I believe so. 

There is no doubt about that? I should say so, yes. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You think that Mrs. Crippen saw Mrs. 
Martinetti, or that they were visiting the one or the other at least once a 
week? Once a week. 

Is that independent of the meetings at the Guild? Yes, independent 
of them ; although sometimes we took our dinner with them on the Wednes- 
day night ; so that would be the Wednesday in that week ; sometimes there 
was an extra night. 

By Mr. Mum Did you consider at all, in this plan of yours, the pain 
that the announcement of your wife's death would give to Mrs. Martinetti? 
I did not think they were so closely attached as has been made out. 

You had an interview with her on the 23rd, had you not? Yes. 

Was she much distressed to hear of your wife's illness? She did not 
eeem distressed to me. 

You prepared an advertisement of your wife's death for the Era? 
Yes. 

When did you do that? I cannot tell you. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How long before it appeared? Oh, it 
would be two or three days before. 

By Mr. Mum Did you think of the pain that that would give to your 
wife's friends? I was not considering them at all. 

On 24th March you sent a telegram to Mrs. Martinetti, saying that 
you had had a cable that your wife had died the previous night? Yes. 

Did you consider Mrs. Martinetti's feelings at all? I never realised 
that there was that amount of affection as there has been apparently, 
or that they try to make apparent. 

You sent that from Victoria station on the eve of your departure with 
Ethel Le Neve? Yes. 

Then you went off and took your holiday with her ? Yes. 

And you came back? Yes. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Muir, there is one question about that 
telegram that I want to ask ; it says, " Please 'phone Annie." 

By Mr. Mum Who is Annie? Tha+. is Mrs. Stratton. 

Mrs. Eugene Stratton, another close friend? Yes. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Why did you want her told? Because she 
was also an intimate friend. 

By Mr. Mum On 30th March, when you had returned, Mrs. Martinetti 
and Mrs. Smythson came to see you about your wife's death? Yes. 

Were you in mourning? I could not say. 

Think; were you in mourning? I did ,put mourning on afterwards, 
but I could not say whether that day I had. mourning clothes on then or not. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You did put mourning clothes on at some 
time? Yes, at some time. 

How, with reference to your announcement of your wife's death; was 
it contemporaneously or after or before ? Only temporarily. 

I did not ask you about temporarily, I asked when you put them on ? 
Very soon. 
102 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

By Mr. Mum As soon as you returned from Dieppe 1 I think so. I 
would not say if I had mourning on on that day, or whether it was the 
next day or the next day after that. 

Very soon anyhow? Very soon, yes. 

Was Mrs. Smythson an intimate friend of your wife? I would not 
call her an intimate friend. 

Mrs. Martinetti? Certainly, yes. 

Were they much distressed? Yes. 

And had you to play the role of the bereaved husband? Yes. 

Did you do it well ? I am sure I could not tell you that. 

Your wife's friends were with you, condoling with you upon the 
loss of your wife; did you play the part well? That is a question you 
should ask them ; I cannot say. 

You got a letter from Dr. Burroughs and his wife two of your wife's 
oldest friends? Yes. 

And you wrote to him? I did. 

Take exhibit 31. (Letter handed to witness.) It is on black-edged 
paper? Yes. 

In keeping with your mourning? Yes. 

And the letter in keeping with your role of bereaved husband? Yes. 

" Albion House, 5th April. My Dear Doctor, I feel sure you will 
forgive me for my apparent neglect, but really I have been nearly out of 
my mind with poor Belle's death, so far away from me." Sheer 
hypocrisy? It is already admitted, sir. 

Sheer hypocrisy? I am not denying any of this. 

" She was not with her sister " which sister were you speaking of? 
The one in New York. 

Which of them the half-sister or the whole sister? The half-sister. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What name? Mrs. Mills. 

Not the lady who has been called? No. 

By Mr. Mum Was she very fond of that half-sister? Well, she 
seemed to be, but when the half-sister was over here they did not agree 
at all. 

And Tessa, the whole sister, who has been here, was she very fond 
of her ? I do not think she had written to her for an immensely long time. 

One of the witnesses, Dr. Burroughs, told us that there was a sister, 
Tessa, whom she was very fond of. That was the sister that Dr. 
Burroughs says he thought you were referring to in this letter? Yes. 

That is the lady who has been here? Yes; she could not have been 
so very fond of her, because she wrote more often to Mrs. Mills. 

" She was not with her sister. She was out in California on business 
for me, and, quite like her disposition, would keep up, although she should 
have been in bed." Is that a true description of the disposition of your 
wife? She would never give in to anything. 

She was a cheerful, bright person? Yes. 

This wife of yours whom you were pretending to mourn? Yes. 

" She would keep up when she should have been in bed, with the 
consequence that pleuro-pneumonia terminated fatally. Almost to the 

103 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

last she refused to let me know there was any danger, so the cable that 
she had gone came as a most awful shook to me." Your imagination 
was equal to the shock? I do not see why you keep on with these ques- 
tions, because I am willing to admit and tell you that they were all lies 
right through. 

By the LOED CHIEF JUSTICE That may be quite true, Dr. Crippen, but 
it is a very serious part of the case, and you must really answer the 
questions, lies or no lies. I beg your pardon, my lord. 

By Mr. MUIR That was pure imagination this awful shock? All 
imagination entirely. 

" I fear I have sadly neglected my friends, but pray forgive me, 
and believe me most truly appreciative of your sympathy. Even now I am 
not fit to talk to my friends, but as soon as I feel I can control myself 
I will run in on you and Maud one evening. I am, of course, giving up 
the house, and every night packing things away. Love to both, and 
again thanking you for your kindness to me. As ever, yours Peter." 
That was to your wife's friends? Yes. 

How did you know that your wife would not write to Maud Burroughs? 

I did not believe she would write to anybody, the way she was going on. 

How did you know she would not? Because she told me to cover up 

any scandal there was ; if she had not said that she would have intended 

to write herself. 

How did you know that your wife would not write to Maud Burroughs, 
her friend? Well, I did not know it positively, of course; I only inferred 
it from what she said. 

You did not know it? I did not know it positively. 
How did you know that she would not write to her friend, Mrs. 
Martinetti? The same answer applies. 
You did not know? I did not know. 

Do you ask the jury to believe that not knowing that your wife might 
write to those people, you told them she was dead ? Yes. 

Where did you think she was? I have already expressed an opinion 
on that. I thought she had gone to Chicago, where Bruce Miller lived. 
How would she get to Chicago? By a boat and by train. 
Through what port? Through New York by Philadelphia, or Boston, 
or Quebec. 

New York, the direct route? I do not know whether New York is 
as much direct as Quebec. 

New York, where she had two sisters alive? Yes. 
And a stepfather? Yes. 

And Mrs. Ginnette, an intimate friend? Yes. 

For all you knew, she might have gone to see those people? Yes. But 
I did not think she would. 

A, .11 you look at exhibit 71. (Handed.) " 39 Hilldrop Crescent." 
The envelope post-marked 7th April. Is that when you wrote it? 
That is right. 

Your wife had left you on the 1st February? Yes. 
Gone to America? Yes. 

How did you know she had not called upon Mrs. Mills? I did not 
104 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

know, but I felt sure that if she had I would have had some word from 
there. 

And you wrote this letter to Mrs. Mills and her husband? Yes. 

" My dear Louise and Robert " it is written on black edged paper t 
Yes. 

" I hardly know how to write to you of my dreadful loss. The shock 
to me has been so dreadful that I am hardly able to control myself. My 
dear Cora has gone. To make the shock to me more dreadful I did not 
even see her at the last. A few weeks ago we had news that an old 
relative of mine in California had died, and to secure important property 
to ourselves it was necessary for one of us to put the matter in a lawyer's 
hands at once. As I was very busy, Cora proposed that she should go, 
and as it was necessary for some one to be there at once, she would go 
straight through from here to California, without stopping at all, then 
return by way of Brooklyn, and so would be able to pay you a long visit. 
Unfortunately on the way out my poor Cora caught a severe cold, and not 
having while travelling a chance to take proper care of herself, it settled 
on her lungs, later to develop into pleuro-pneumonia. She wished not to 
frighten me, and so kept writing not to worry about her, it was only a 
slight matter. Next, I heard by cable, she was dangerously ill. Two 
days later, after I had cabled to know -should I write to her, I heard the 
dreadful news that she had passed away. Imagine, if you can, the 
dreadful shock to me never more to see my Cora alive nor hear her voice 
again. She is being sent back, and I shall soon have what is left of her. 
Of course, I am giving up the house. In fact, it drives me mad being in 
it alone. I will sell out everything. I do not know what I shall do. 
Probably find some business to take me travelling for a few months until 
I can recover from the shock. As soon as I have a settled address I will 
write again to you, as it is so terrible to me to have to write this dreadful 
news. Will you please tell all the friends of our loss. With love to all. 
I will write again soon, and give you my address, probably in France. 
From Doctor." What scandal was there which made it necessary for 
you to write that letter to Cora Crippen'a sister? Because I knew that 
Mrs. Ginnette was in New York, and that she would probably go to see the 
sisters, and that if she did so it was necessary for them to know why she 
had gone. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am afraid I do not understand your 
answer. Who would probably go to see her sisters? Mrs. Ginnette, who 
was one of the members of the Guild. 

By Mr. MUIR And, for all you knew, Cora Crippen might have seen 
Mrs. Ginnette? If she had I should have heard before. 

Do you ask the jury to believe that you wrote that letter without the 
certainty ? I do. 

Listen without the certainty that Cora Crippen would never see her 
sisters again? I do; it is only the matter of the sequence of lies which 
I was obliged to tell. 

You are 1 telling lies? I have already acknowledged it. 

1 This question illustrates the acoustics of the Central Criminal Court. Obviously 
Dr. Crippen heard it as "you were telling lies which you hoped would be believed." 
As it stands it makes the witness confess to committing perjury in the witness-box. Ed. 

10S 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

You are telling lies, which you hope will be believed? Yes. 

And you think they will be believed? I believed they would be. 

But if Cora Crippen were alive she might call at any moment on her 
sisters? I did not think she would. If she went off with some other 
man I did not think she would have the face to go there. 

This was a very elaborate series of representations to a large number 
of persons? Yes. 

For whose sake were you going through this elaborate process? The 
sake of both of us. 

For your sake what did it matter to you? Well, I did not wish the 
friends here to think that I had treated her so badly that she had gone 
away and left me. 

You did not wish your friends here to think that you had treated her 
badly? Yes. 

Is that right? Yes, so far as my part of it was concerned. 

Going about, as you were, with Ethel Le Neve? That was not public, 
outside the one time that I went to the ball. 

And again, when she was wearing your wife's furs? Yes. 

And again at Dieppe, and again taking her to live with you at Hilldrop 
Crescent, your wife's house? Nobody would know the difference. 

How were you saving yourself from anything by telling those lies? 
I was saving myself from the scandal of my friends. 

What scandal were you covering up? The scandal of the separation 
from my wife. 

When you were living in open adultery, according to you, with Ethel 
Le Neve? It was not so open as you seem to imagine. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is comment now, Mr. Muir. The only 
scandal he can suggest is that his wife had gone away; that Is what it 
amounts to. 

By Mr. MUIR Now, you had treated your wife well? Yes. 

Given her money? Yes. 

And jewels? She had them to wear. 

And clothes? Clothes. 

And kept up an establishment for her for four years after you ceased 
to cohabit with her; and then she treated you with ingratitude, and went 
away and left you for no cause at all ? Yes. 

Why should you seek to cover up a scandal for such a wife as that? 
I do not think I can explain it any further than I have. 

A wife who had deserted you for another man why should you seek 
to cover up scandal for such a wife as that? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He says he can give no further explanation ; 
there is no object in repeating it. 

By Mr. MUIR You had been a tenant of 39 Hilldrop Crescent for five 
and a half years? Yes. 

Had the floor of the cellar of that house been disturbed during the 
whole of that time? Not to my knowledge. 

But would you know if it had been ? I was not at home ; Sundays was 
the only time I was at home Sundays and holidays. 

As far as you knew, it had not been disturbed? As far as I knew; 
that is the only answer I can give you. 

106 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

When you were not at home your wife was? There were many times 
that she was not at home; very often she went out in the morning, and I 
did not see her till half-past one or so the next morning. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Will you listen to the question. You are 
being asked with regard to the cellar being disturbed. You say that, so 
far as you knew, it had never been disturbed, and you had no reason to 
think that it was ever disturbed? No, I had no reason to think so. 

By Mr. Mum You had no reason to think so at all? No. 

Had you ever been in the cellar? Yes. 

Who carried the coals upstairs for use in the house? We did not use 
coal upstairs. 

None at all? None at all. 

Did you use coal in the house at all ? Not very much ; we had mostly 
gas fires. 

Did you use any at all? We used some in the kitchen range at times. 

But who carried it when it was necessary to carry it? I very seldom 
ever carried it ; sometimes on Sundays I carried in some coal. 

So that you were familiar with the cellar; you knew where the place 
was? I have not said that I was not. 

You know, of course, that those remains were found in the cellar? 
I was told when I returned to England by my solicitor. 

So far as you know, they cannot have been put there while you were 
tenants? Not that I know of, of course. 

So far as you know, that is impossible? So far as I know. 1 would 
not say it was impossible, because there were times when we were away; 
during my absence in the daytime my wife was often away. 

By the LOKD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you really ask the jury to understand 
that your answer is that, without your knowledge or your wife's, at some 
time during the five years, those remains could have been put there? I 
say that it does not seem possible I mean, it does not seem probable, but 
there is a possibility. 

By Mr. Mum Now, I want you to look please at the two suits of 
pyjamas. (Handed.) Are those your pyjamas? They are. 

When did you get them? I think I bought these last September. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You mean September, 1909? Yes. 

By Mr. Mum Did you buy them yourself? Yes, I bought them 
myself. 

Where? At Jones Brothers. 

Had you any other suits of pyjamas at that time? There were my 
worn-out ones. 

Which do you mean by your worn-out ones? Well, they are not here. 

Look at exhibit 48 (handed)? I usually had three pairs at a time, 
and this is some of the previous three pairs that I bought before I bought 
this lot. 

Mr. TOBIN My lord, when he said that he bought pyjamas in Septem- 
ber, 1909, I gathered he was speaking of the whole lot. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No, he was speaking of the two. 

The WITNESS Of the two. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He said, " I had just bought the other 
previous lot." 

107 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

The WITNESS There should be another pair belonging to this lot. 

By Mr. Mum That pair of trousers how long have you had those? 
That would probably be a long time previous to the time I bought these; 
I could not say; this was one of three lots, and these are another the last 
three lots I bought. This is the remains of the previous three lots. 

You are giving a very, very important answer? Yes. 

I do not want you to do it hurriedly at all? I thoroughly understand. 

Think of what you have said, and look at those things again? I 
thoroughly understand you. I say that these two are part of a lot of three 
that I bought last September, a year ago; this is the only remains of three 
that I bought previous to this. I cannot say how long previous. 

Was it before or after you went to ililldrop Crescent 1 It was after. 

One moment ; listen to the question ; was it before or after you went to 
Hilldrop Crescent that you bought this suit of pyjamas of which the trousers 
remain ? After. 

Can you tell us at all how long after? I think it was shortly after, 
because it was only at that time that I began to wear pyjamas. 

Shortly after you went to Hilldrop Croscent? Yes. 

You mean in 1905? Yes. 

Are you sure that you bought those pyjamas, of which those are the 
trousers, in the year 1905? I will not say I am sure it was 1905, but I 
know 

1905 or 1906? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He says he bought them shortly after he 
went to Hilldrop Crescent. 

Mr. MUIB My lord, I am questioning him upon certain information 
that I have. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must take his answer, that is all. 

By Mr. Mum Were not those trousers one of the same purchase of 
three sets as the other two? They were not; I am sure of it positive 
of that because I wore them right straight along one pair one week 
and the other pair the next week, so that they would all be nearly worn 
out about together. 

What became of the jacket? That I could not tell you; I could not 
tell you what became of the other two pairs of trousers and the two jackets 
probably worn out, as far as I remember. 

Did your wife ever buy pyjamas for you? No, I bought my own. 

Did not your wife buy those pyjamas for you? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Which are you speaking of now? 

By Mr. Mum All three? No. 

Did not your wife buy those pyjamas for you at Jones Brothers' winter 
sale on 5th January, 1909? I do not think so. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must listen to that question, because 
you have sworn that you bought them yourself. Now, be careful. The 
question is a very specific one. Did not your wife buy them at about the 
5th January, 1909? I bought some myself. I would not say that she did 
not buy some ; she may have bought some of this lot ; I bought some myself 
in September. 

By Mr. Mum Did not your wife buy you three sets of pyjamas at 
108 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Jones Brothers' winter sale on 5th January, 1909? I would not say that 
she did. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Will you say that she did not? I won't 
say that she did not. 

By Mr. Mum Are not those articles the three suits of pyjamas bought 
by your wife in January, 1909, minus the jacket? I do not think so; it 
cannot be possible ; this does not show any signs of wear at all. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Never mind about signs of wear? That 
is the only way I can distinguish. 

By Mr. MUTR Did not your wife buy you those three suits, one of 
them being now minus the jacket, on 5th January, 1909? She bought me 
some, but I do not know whether these were the ones or not. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Two minutes ago you said to Mr. Muir 
that your wife never bought you pyjamas, but that you always bought them 
yourself ? Yes. 

Now, you have said, " My wife did buy me some, but I do not know 
whether these are they "? Perhaps I should not have put it so positively. 

Which is true? Perhaps I should not have said so positively; I said 
she may have bought some. 

By Mr. Mum Now, will you take out of the jar and compare it with 
the pattern of that pair of trousers (exhibits 79 and 80 handed). Is it the 
same pattern ? It is similar not the same I would not say it is the same. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE " Similar " is one thing ; you are asked 
whether, as far as you can tell, it is the same pattern? It looks the same. 
(The exhibits were handed to the jury.) 

Mr. Mum My lord, may the jury have a lens to count the lines of the 
pattern 1 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Certainly. Of course, gentlemen, you will 
observe that one ia wet and the other is dry. Do not say anything, just 
look at them for yourselves ; you have not heard the whole of the evidence 
yet. What is suggested by Mr. Muir is that on careful examination, 
having regard to the different condition, the pattern of the one is the same 
as the pattern of the other. That is your point, I think, Mr. Muir? 

Mr. Mum Yes, my lord. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Gentlemen, you shall have them in your 
room presently. I think you had better get all the evidence before you 
ask any questions about them. All of you shall have an opportunity of 
examining them. 

(To Witness) I think this is so important, Dr. Crippen, that I had 
better tell you what I have taken. You have now said that your wife 
did buy some, and these may be they? Yea. 

The clean pair of trousers I am speaking of. Do you wish to alter 
that answer at all? I think I said she may have not that she did buy 
some. 

And that those, what I will call the trousers alone, may be part of 
them? These may be. 

You were asked about that one? And the other one may be from the 
ones that I bought in September. 

You were asked about those which are being shown to the jury together 
K 109 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Havvley Harvey Crippen 

with the others; you were asked whether you would swear that they are 
mot part of the lot bought by your wife for you in January, 1909? I will 
not swear that they are either. 

Will you swear they are not? No, I would not swear they are not, 
but I say I think that that pair is not a recent pair at all. 

By Mr. MTJIR If those trousers were not part of what your wife 
bought in 1909, when were they bought? Well, at almost every sale 
that is to say, we will say September, January, and midsummer there 
were pyjamas bought either by myself or her. Now, I can't say what 
lot this comes from ; that would be an impossibility for me to say. 

How many sets of pyjamas had you at Hilldrop Crescent? That I 
ould not say. 

At one time? I generally had one set and the remains of another 
set the remains of a worn-out set and the other set. 

Did not you tell the jury a little time ago that you generally had 
three sets going? I am speaking of three sets. 

i The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I think he meant a set of three. He said, 
" I always had a set of three and part of a worn-out set. " 

The WITNESS I am speaking of a set of three, and parts of a worn- 
out set. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He is not speaking of two sets and a set of 
three. 

Mr. MUIR Did you have any more? Than these two pairs? 

Yes of the three? Of the three, I could not say. 

Now, I am going to put this to you, so that you will have an oppor- 
tunity of altering your answers if you desire to alter them, that those 
three sets which are now before you, one of them incomplete, were manu- 
factured in November, 1908, and the cloth of which they were made 
never came into existence before November, 1 908 ? I can only say that I 
do not think it is possible that that is so, of this set, for the reason that 
this is so much worn and these are not. 

It is quite possible to call evidence upon this point? It may be 
possible, but to my mind it does not seem possible. 

I want you to have that in your mind before you give your final 
answer with regard to those things that the cloth of which all those 
three things before you were made was made in November, 1908? 1908. 

Yes, 1908 November? Yes. 

And that the jacket in that jar is part of the .same cloth? I could 
not say. 

And that it was sold by Jones Brothers? That I could not tell you. 

If that is right, that pyjama jacket must have got in beside those 
remains since November, 1908? 

Mr. TOBIN My lord, I do not know how far your lordship thinks my 
friend should carry thia? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I do not think Mr. Muir is going too far, 
but I do not think it is necessary to do more than put the questions that 
he has put. This is not the time for argument. 

Mr. MUIR I did not desire to pursue it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You have indicated some very forcible facts 
110 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

to this witness quite fairly enough and given him the opportunity of 
altering his answer if he liked. 

By Mr. MUIR Now, do you wish to alter any answer that you have 
given? No, I do not. 

When did you make up your mind to go away from London? The 
morning after Inspector Dew was there the 8th or 9th. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The 9th July? The 9th July. 

By Mr. MUIR Are you sure about that? Yes. 

Had you the day before been contemplating the possibility of your 
going away? I would not like to say that I had made up my mind. 
When Inspector Dew came to me and laid out all the facts that he told me, 
I might have thought, well, if there is all this suspicion, and I am 
likely to have to stay in jail for months and months 1 and months, perhaps 
until this woman is found, I had better be out of it. 

On the 8th July you thought that? After I had finished with Inspector 
Dew. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must answer this question, Mr. 
Crippen ; do you really mean that you thought that you would have to lie 
in gaol for months 1 and months ; do you say that ? Quite so, yes. 

By Mr. MUIR Upon what charge? Suspicion. 

Suspicion of what? Suspicion of Inspector Dew said, " This woman 
has disappeared, she must be found." 

Suspicion of what? Suspicion of being concerned in her disappearance. 

What crime did you understand you might be kept in gaol upon 
suspicion of? I do not understand the law enough to say. From what I 
have read it seems to me I have heard of people being arrested on suspicion 
of being concerned in the disappearance of other people. 

The disappearance of other people? Well, I am doing the best I can 
to explain it to you ; I cannot put it for you in a legal phrase. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Nobody wants you to put it in a legal 
phrase; the simple question is, what was the charge that you thought 
might be brought against you after you had seen Inspector Dew? I could 
not define the charge, except that if I could not find the woman I was 
very likely to be held until she was found ; that was my idea. 

By Mr. MUIR Because of what? I cannot say why; I can only say 
that no other idea than that entered my head. If I could not produce 
the woman 

Yes, what would be the inference? Mr. Dew told me that I should 
be in serious trouble; well, I could not make out what the inference 
would be. 

And that was why you contemplated on the afternoon of 8th July 
flying from the country ? Quite so that, and the idea that I had said that 
Miss Le Neve was living with me, and she had told her people she was 
married to me, and it would put her in a terrible position; the only thing 
I could think of was to take her away out of the country where she would 
not have this scandal thrown upon her. 

Had you made up your mind then, when you spoke to Miss Curnow? 
No, I had not made up my mind then. 

Ill 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

" If anything should happen to me give the envelopes to Miss Le 
Neve "1 I had not made up my mind then. 

You had not made up your mind then? I had not made up my 
mind then, no. 

After that you went into the cellar? Yes. 

With Inspector Dew? Yes. 

And stood there in the cellar? Yea. 

Was it after that that you made up your mind ? No, it was the next 
morning. 

Then it was after that? Oh, yea, it was after that; it was the next 
morning, after I had studied the whole matter over. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What Mr. Muir asks is this, you had 
thought about it on the afternoon of the 8th, but you made up your 
mind on the morning of the 9th? Yes, after I had studied the matter 
over, and after I had consulted with Miss Le Neve as to what she would 
like to do. 

By Mr. MUIR You thought you were in danger of arrest? Yes. 

And so you fled the country ? Yes. 

Under a false name? Yes. 

Shaved oft your moustache ? Yes. 

Left oft wearing your glasses in public? Yes. 

Took Le Neve with you? Yes. 

Under a false name? Yesi. 

Posing as your son ? Yes. 

Went to Antwerp? Yea. 

Stayed in a hotel there? Yes. 

Stayed indoors all day? Oh, no. 

Practically all day? We did not; we went to the Zoological Gardens, 
and walked all over the place. 

Enjoying yourselves? Certainly. 

Signed the register under a false name in the hotel ? I do not remem- 
ber signing the register in Antwerp. 

I mean in the hotel book. What name did you give at the hotel? 
I know in Brussels I signed the hotel book in one place, and in another 
place I did not. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What you are asked is, what name you 
gave? If I gave a name anywhere it would be " Robinson." 

By Mr. Mura la this a strip of paper cut from the hotel register? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You need not pursue it; he says he gave the 
name of Robinson. It is perhaps a little important, and I will read it as I 
have it here "John Robinson, merchant, age 55; place resident at, 
Canada.'* Then " Vienne." (To Witness) That, I suppose, isi the place 
of origin? The place you come from. 

It is put down in two places. Is the other where you are going to? 
No. 

There are two " Viennes " down here? I think Canada is the place 
of going to, and Vienna is the place you come from. 

This must be made an exhibit now (marked 83). Is that your hand- 
writing or not? Well, the bottom one is not my handwriting. 
112 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

You gave the information for that? I think, my lord, the bottom one 
is written by the hotel-keeper. 

That is highly probable, and you gave the information for it? I did. 

The name is, " Robinson, John; trade, merchant; age, 55; place of 
birth, Canada; place of domicile, Quebec; authority who signed the pass- 
port, blank; date of passport, blank; destination indicated in passport, 
blank; from where the visitors have come, Vienne (that is Vienna); Belgian 
authority that has vised passport, blank; date of arrival, 10.7.10; (that is 
the 10th July); date of departure, blank; place where the passengers have 
said they were going to, Vienna." That is the line for John Robinson. 
Then there is " Mr. Robinson" " fils " (that means son) "without pro- 
fession ; sixteen years old ; born in Canada ; residing in Quebec ; no passport ; 
no date of departure; place they have come from, Vienna; Belgian authority 
that has vised passport, blank; same date of arrival, 10th July; place 
going to, Vienna." You have no doubt you gave that information? Yes, 
I have no doubt about it. 

By Mr. Mum Then the second description is that of Miss Le Neve? 
Yes. 

Disguised as a boy? Yes. 

Passing as your son? Yes. 

From what hotel does that come ; I think it is the Hotel des Ardennes ? 
Yes. 

That is somewhere in Brussels, is it? Yes. 

That is the hotel you stayed at? In Brussels, yes. 

When you got to Quebec on board the steamer, or near Quebec, 
Inspector Dew came on board? Yes. 

You were much surprised to see him? I did not expect to see 
Inspector Dew. 

Did you recognise him at once? Yes. 

Though he was disguised; he was not dressed in his inspector's dress? 
Well, as soon as I saw him in the cabin I recognised him. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You are asked whether you recognised 
him when he came on board? No, I did not recognise him when he came 
on board. 

He was dressed as a pilot? Yes, he was dressed as a pilot; I did 
not recognise him until he came into the cabin. 

By Mr. Muni You were quite taken by surprise that you should be 
interrogated by him <or spoken to by him ? Yes, I did not expect to se 
him. 

Up to that time had you thought at all of what charge would be made 
against you? I had not. 

He told you that you would be charged with the murder and mutila- 
tion of your wife? When he read the warrant, do you mean? 

Inspector Dew on board the " Montroee " told you that you would 
be charged with the murder and mutilation of your wife? Do you mean 
that that was in the warrant that he read to me? 

No, no; that is what he said before he read the warrant? Well, I 
would not pay much attention to what he told me, because I was in euch 
a confusion at the time. 

113 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is a little more than that. Just pay 
attention. It is very important. You had better put it to him again, 
Mr. Muir. Ask him, "did he not." You are making a statement to 
him, and he does not accept it. 

The WITNESS No, I do not accept it, because 

By Mr. MUIR Did the inspector say, " Good morning, Dr. Crippen j 
I am Inspector Dew " 1 Yes. 

And did you say, " Good morning, Mr. Dew"? " Good morning, 
Mr. Dew." 

Did the inspector then say, " You will be arrested for the murder 
and mutilation of your wife, Cora Crippen, in London, on or about 2nd 
February last"? I would not say that I took that ip, because I was so 
very much surprised and confused that I did not quite have my right 
senses. 

Did a Canadian officer, Mr. McCarthy, caution you? He did. 

And tell you that you need not say anything unless you liked? Yea, 
and then the other one cautioned me later on. 

Wait a moment caution you that anything you did say would be 
taken down in writing and might be used in evidence against you? I 
do not remember the legal part of that. 

He cautioned you? He cautioned me, yes. 

And you realised that you were being charged? Yes. 

With what? I realised I was being charged. 

With what? Well, I realised that I was being arrested for murder; 
I remember hearing that. 

The murder of your wife? Yes. 

Up to that time did you believe she was alive? I did. 

Did you put any question to Inspector Dew as to whether she had 
been found? I did not put any question at all. 

As to how he knew she was dead? No. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You put no questions at all? I put no 
questions at all. 

By Mr. Mum You made no reply? I made no reply. 

Were you left in charge of Mr. M'Carthy in the cabin? Mr. McCarthy 
and the other one. 

Dennis? Dennis well, I did not know the name. 

There was another police officer? Yes, there was another one. 

And the chief engineer of the ship ? Yes. 

Did those persons remain in the cabin until Inspector Dew came back t 
Yes. 

When Inspector Dew came back did he go frith you to another cabin? 
Yes, he took me downstairs to the cabin. 

Up to that time you had been in the captain's cabin ? Yes. 

As you left the cabin did you say to him, " I am not sorry, the 
anxiety has been too much "? Yes. 

Anxiety for what? Anxiety thinking I might be pursued from London. 

For what? For the same reason that I ran away. 

That was the anxiety that was too much for you? Yes. 
114 






Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crlppen 

To be arrested on some charge the nature of which you did not under- 
stand? I did not understand, no. 

Do you remember the handcuffs being put on 1 I do. 

Do you remember the inspector saying to you, " I must put theae 
on, because on a card found on you you have written that you intend to 
jump overboard "1 Yes, I do. 

Did you say this to him, " I won't; I am more than satisfied, because 
that anxiety has been too awful "; did you say that? Yes, the same 

What anxiety? The same as I have already explained. 

Do you remember being searched by Inspector Dew? Yes. 

While that waa going on, do you remember asking him, " How 
is Miss Le Neve"? Yes. 

And his saying, " Agitated, but I am doing all I can for her "1 Yes. 

Did you say to the inspector, "It is only fair to her to say that she 
knows nothing about it; I never told her anything "? Yes. 

" It is only fair to say " ; that meant " fair to Le Neve " ? Quite so. 

Did you know she had been arrested? It said so in the warrant. 

It said on the warrant that she was charged jointly with you with the 
murder of your wife? Yes; that was after the warrant was read to me. 

And it was fair to her to eay that she knew nothing about it? 
Quite so. 

That is, nothing about the murder of your wife? Nothing about any 
of the circumstances beyond what I have already given in my answers to 
Mr. Huntly Jenkins. 

That she knew nothing about " it "; she was only charged with one 
thing? Yes. 

The murder of your wife? Well, I did not refer to the murder. I 
referred to the circumstances under which the arrest had come about. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Just listen. I want you to appreciate 
this point clearly. What I took you down as saying yesterday was that you 
had told her your wife had run away and left you, and that you afterwards 
told her that your wife was dead ? Yes, that is the two things I told her. 

And that you told her nothing else? I told her nothing else. 

Now, in view of what you told us yesterday, and have now repeated 
to-day, answer Mr. Muir's question as to what you meant by saying " It 
is only fair to say that she knows nothing about it"? 

By Mr. MUIB What was " it "? I referred to the disappearance and 
the lies which I told, which I knew would throw me under suspicion from 
what Mr. Dew had expressed when he was at the house. 

" I never told her anything "? Yes; I never told her anything about 
the letters or the lies that I had told at all. I told her only two facts, 
one, that Mrs. Crippen had gone to America, and one that she was dead. 
That 13 the only two facts I ever told her. I never told her anything 
about the lies I had given out, and I never told her anything about the 
letter that I had written, so that she knew nothing about the suspicious 
circumstances which brought about my arrest. 

That is not what you said; you say that is what you meant? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He says that is what he referred to. 

115 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

The WITNESS That is what I referred to when I said "it." 

By Mr. MUIR You never told her anything about the suspicious 
circumstances in which you had left London ? No. 

How did you persuade her to disguise herself as a boy and to cut off 
her hair? I told her that Mr. Dew had said that there would be serious 
trouble if I did not find Mrs. Crippen. 

You told her nothing about the suspicious circumstances under which 
you left London ; how did you persuade her to cut off her hair and disguise 
herself as a boy? Am I not just explaining it to you? 

Will you explain that? 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Give your answer, please, to that ques- 
tion. I did not think you understood it, and Mr. Muir was right to 
repeat it? I explained this to her ; she told me, of course, that she had 
made a statement, the same as I had; I explained to her that that state- 
ment involved her in describing that she lived with me, and that my 
statement gave the same, and that there would be a scandal which would 
turn her folks against her, and that Mr. Dew had sa ; d that if I did not 
produce Mrs. Crippen there would be trouble for me, and the only way 
I saw for us would be to escape this by going away to another place where 
we could be alone and start a new life together. 

By Mr. Mum Both of you disguised? Both of us disguised. 

And you hoped unrecognisably disguised? Quite so, so far as getting 
out of London was concerned ; I never thought of any disguise after that. 

That is all you told her to persuade her to do that? That isi all. 

Will you look at the card, exhibit 2 (handed). When did you write 
that? Inspector Dew arrived on board on 31st July? I wrote it then 
on the 30th. 

Whose idea was it that you should write this card? The eailor, or 
rather the quartermaster, suggested to me that I must leave something 
to show that I was going to jump overboard. 

Was it his idea or your idea? Well, it was my idea to put it in this 
way; it was his suggestion. 

That you should leave something behind you? Something behind 
me, some writing, he said, to show that I was going to jump overboard. 

The language of it entirely your own? Quite so. 

And without a suggestion from the quartermaster? Yes. 

What time on 30th July did you have your first communication with 
the quartermaster? It was along towards noon some time about noon. 

Where were you when the quartermaster spoke to you? I was sitting 
just behind the captain's cabin. 

This communication made by the quartermaster entirely without invi- 
tation from you? Yes. 

What was it the quartermaster said to you? He said, " I have a 
letter I want to give you about three o'clock," then at three o'clock I went 
to the little room that was in front of the captain's cabin; it is a wheel- 
room ; I do not know what you call it, a room where there is* a wheel. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The wheelhouse? That is it the wheel- 
house. He gave me this letter to read, and in the letter it said that the 
captain knew who I was, and that the police were coming to arrest me at 
116 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Quebec, and that if I liked he would stow me away and smuggle me ashore 
at Montreal. 

By Mr. MUIR Was it signed? I do not remember whether it was 
signed or not. 

By the LORD CHEEP JUSTICE That was his suggestion? It was his 
suggestion. 

It did not come from you ? Not from me. 

By Mr. MUIR Was it signed ? The letter was not signed, and he took 
it right back again ; he seemed afraid to trust me with it. 

What was his name? I do not know his name; I would not know 
his name. 

How many quartermasters were there? I think there were four. 

How many did you see ? I believe there were four ; I think I saw four 
different ones. 

What was this one like? He was little taller than I am, very thick 
Bet, dark ; that is the nearest description I can give. 

Any hair on his face? Yes, he had a moustache. 

Is that all? That is all. 

Had any of the other quartermasters got moustaches ? Yes. 

All of them ? I think they all had ; I am not sure. 

All dark ? I cannot say. I particularly noticed him because I spotted 
him to remember him the next day. 

Were all the quarterma-sters dark? I could not say. 

All thick set? No, some of them were tall, and some of them were 
short. 

Was this man the tallest or the shortest of them ? He was a medium 
size. 

Were any of the others medium? I think there was another medium 
size man, and I think the other two were tall men, one was a very tall man. 

You would have no difficulty in distinguishing this man if you saw 
him? Not if I saw him. 

Did he tell you what you were going to be arrested for? He did not. 

And you had no idea? Any more than the suspicions I have already 
given you. 

You intended this document to be found by the police officers? Well, 
I had arranged that it should be found, so that Miss Le Neve would say she 
found it the next morning. 

And hand it to the police? Yes. 

So that the police would believe what was stated in it? Yes. 

And would understand it? Yes. 

Would understand what it meant? They would understand what it 
meant, because the quartermaster was to say that I had jumped overboard. 

And would understand what was expressed in it here? Yes. 

" I cannot stand the horrors I go through every night any longer." 
What horrors were you going through every night? The fear of arrest; 
I was not going through any horrors every night ; it was purely imaginative. 

What horrors did you mean the police to understand that you were 
going through every night? That they were coming to arrest me. 

What horrors did you mean the police to understand you were going 

117 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

through every night, which you could not stand any longer? The dread 
of arrest. 

For some unknown offence? Yea; I have already explained that. 

" I can see nothing bright ahead, and money is coming to an end.'* 
It very nearly had, had it not? No, indeed. 

How much had you left? There was some 70 dollars, I believe, and 
about 90 worth of diamonds. That is hardly "at an end." 

" I have made up my mind to jump overboard to-night. I know I 
have spoilt your life, but hope some day you will learn to forgive me; the 
last word, Love, your H." That was all pretence? Certainly. 

And the horrors were the horrors of your imagination entirely? Yes. 

You had arranged this with Misa Le Neve ? Yes. 

That she was to remain on board and carry on the pretence? Yes. 

Now, that card looks as if you were confessing your guilt of some 
offence, does it not? It was intended to do that. 

Intended to make the police believe that you had confessed to your 
guilt and jumped overboard? Well, I should not have put that inter- 
pretation upon it; probably you do. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Just listen. The card ia supposed to 
be left and picked up by a policeman? Quite so. 

What Mr. Muir puts to you is, would it not convey to that man the 
idea that you had jumped overboard because of your horrors? Well, I 
have explained what horrors 

No, no ! answer Mr. Muir's question. What do you say it would 
convey to the policeman? Well, I cannot answer it in that way; I do not 
know how to answer it. 

By Mr. Mum Now, you have given your explanation of that card 
in the witness-box yesterday? Yes. 

For the first time? The first time. I could not give it before, 
because I was not in the witness-box before. 

Did you get into communication with the solicitor who is now defend- 
ing you on 2nd or 3rd August? Yes. 

By telegram? Yes. 

From him to you? Yes. 

Did you have further telegrams from him? One more, I believe one 
other. 

And a letter or letters? Yes. 

Did you write to him while you were in Canada? I did. 

And did you see him soon after your arrival in London? The next 
Sunday. 

Has he been conducting and had charge of your defence ever since? 
He has. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE How many days after you arrived was it 
that you saw him; you say it was the next Sunday? The next day, the 
Sunday would be the next day ; I arrived on the Saturday night. 

By Mr. Mum Were you asked before the magistrate whether you 
desired to give evidence? I do not think I was. I did not hear any 
such request as that. 

Did you desire to give evidence before the magistrate ? Not before the 
magistrate ; no. 
118 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Were you asked whether you had any statement to make before the 
magistrate? I do not think I was. 

Did you know that you could qrive evidence if you wanted to? I did 
not know that I could before the magistrate. It was not mentioned between 
my solicitor and myself at all. 

Were you offered the opportunity of attending the coroner's inquest? 
Yes. 

And did you decline to attend it ? I declined to attend, it, through the 
advice of my solicitor. He said it was not necessary for me to go ; other- 
wise I should have gone. I did intend to go at first. 

Did you ask your solicitor to find this quartermaster? No, I did not. 
As soon as I arrived I explained to him, and I left it entirely in his hands. 

So that your solicitor knew about this quartermaster as soon as you 
arrived? The same Sunday. 

Do you know that the " Montrose" has been in London twice since 
then? No; I know she has been here once, through seeing it in the papers. 
I saw in the papers that the captain was here, but I did not know until 
some one called my attention to a paragraph in the papers stating that 
the " Montrose " had sailed somewhere from London I did not know before 
that that she had been in London. 

So far as you know, has any effort been made to bring that quarter- 
master here? No, not so far as I know. 

Of course, you understand that if your wife is alive there is no founda- 
tion for this charge at all? Decidedly not. 

And that if she could be found you would at once be acquitted of it? 
Oh, rather. 

What steps have been taken by you to find your wife? I have 
not taken any steps. 

So far as you know, has anybody else taken any steps to find your wife? 
Not that I know. I have left myself entirely in my solicitor's hands. I 
have made no efforts of any kind in fact, I could not. 

Was Mrs. Ginnette a great friend of your wife's? Yes. 

She is well known in the theatrical profession the music hall profession 
especially in America? No, not to my knowledge; she is well known on 
this side; I do not know about the other side. 

Did you see her in Quebec? I saw her in Quebec ; that is, she came to 
the room where I was, but I did not speak to her. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do you mean you could not speak to her, 
or that you could have spoken, and did not? I think she asked if she could 
speak to me, and she was told she could not. 

By Mr. Mora She was in the same room with you? Yes. 

As near to you as I am now? More near than that. 

For how long? A few minutes. 

At that time you knew you were charged with the murder of your wife? 
Yes. 

Did you ask Mrs. Ginnette to try and find your wife ? I could not speak 
to Mrs. Ginnette. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Just answer the question first; did you 
ask Mrs. Ginnette? I did not, because I supposed that I should not be 
allowed to speak to her. 

119 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Never mind about supposing; you did not speak to her. Why did 
you not speak to her ? Because I supposed I would not be allowed to speak 
to her. 

By Mr. Mum Did Mrs. Ginnette come into this room and ask to speak 
to you? I do not know what she came into the room for. She came into 
the room and sat down, and I heard her speak, I think it was to Inspector 
M'Carthy; I am not sure, but I understood her to ask could she speak to 
me, and I thought he said no; but I know she did not speak to me, and 
consequently I did not speak to her. 

Now, if your wife was alive and in America, there was her friend 
Mrs. Ginnette, who is an American, is she not? She was in America then. 

Her headquarters are New York? Yes. 

Could she not have found your wife for you? I do not know. 

Or try? She could have tried, but I did not speak to her, because I 
supposed I could not. 

Mrs. Mills and Mr. Mackamotzki are all living in New York, the step- 
father, the half-sister, and the sister of your wife? Yes. 

Was any application made to them to find your wife ? No. 

Did you ask Chief Inspector Dew to try and find your wife? Yes, we 
discussed the matter. I asked him if he could not find her by applying 
to the police in Chicago. 

When? When he was at the house in Hilldrop Crescent. 

That was when the advertisement was prepared? Yes. 

And left behind by you? Yes. 

Now, Mrs. Nash Lilian Hawthorne she was a great friend of your 
wife? Yes. I have not seen her since the arrest. 

Did you see her and her husband on 28th June? I did. 

Had they just come back from America? They told me BO. 

At that time, 28th June, you were representing that your wife had been 
in America and had died there? Yes. 

Was that the first time you had Been her since your wife's death? 
Since her disappearance. 

Since her death was announced? Yes. 

And was Mrs. Nash much distressed? I do not know that she seemed 
very much distressed. 

Were you very much distressed? Well 

Did you sob with grief in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Nash? No, 
I did not. 

Sobbing with grief, I suggest to you you were, in the presence of Mr. 
and Mrs. Nash on the 28th June? I was not. 

Were they pressing you for particulars of where your wife died ? They 
were. 

Did they say that they had just come back from America? Yes. 

Did they tell you that they could find no trace of her ? No. 

Did they tell you that they had seen Mrs. Ginnette? They told me 
they had seen Mrs. Ginnette, yes. 

And that Mrs. Ginnette had heard nothing of your wife being in 
America, or having been in America? No. 

Or having died there? They did not tell me that. 
120 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crlppen 

They pressed you very much, did they not, for particulars? They 
pressed me for particulars, but they did not tell me that. 

Did you know that they were going back to America? I did not. 

That was 28th June? Yes ; at least, I accept your statement; I do not 
know the date myself. 

When did you first think of prescribing hyoscin for your patients? 
Well, the first I knew of hyoscin as a prescription, as a treatment at all, 
was in 1885. 

Here, in London? Here in London. 

Yes? It was early in January. 

Of this year? Yes. 

For how long had you been prescribing for patients in London ? Well, 
I had been treating patients chiefly for ear troubles for a very long time, 
but not in a general way. 

How long had you been prescribing medicines for patients in London ? 
I had not been prescribing any special remedies ; I have been prescribing 
Munyon's remedies for well, ever since I have been here. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Just confine yourself to the question. You 
were asked not about selling remedies, but about prescribing for patients, 
that is, making up prescriptions? When I prescribed for the patients I 
always prescribed Munyon's remedies up to about that time. 

By Mr. Mum Am I right in taking it that you mean that before 1910 
you had no patients for whom you made up prescriptions? Oh, yes, I had 
patients. 

For how long before January, 1910? Well, I only made an occasional 
rule of doing so for well, three to six months maybe; I would not like 
to fix a date. 

Approximately six months? Three to six months, but I did not make 
it a rule to do as I did afterwards ; I can explain to you why. 

Did you do it through the post? Yes. 

How did you get into touch with those patients? Through Munyon's 
letters. 

Do you mean through their answering the advertisementa? Yes, I 
was acting as their medical adviser. 

Did you see them personally, or was it conducted by correspondence? 
Very few personally most by correspondence. 

You would have to have their names and addresses in order to aend 
them the remedies? I did not send the remedies. 

Who sent them off'? They had what we called a despatching clerk. 

Who was that? That was in Munyon's office. 

Who was it? I do not know her last name; her name is Maggie. 

Was she in the employ when you last were there? Yes. 

Where did you usually get the addresses from ? From the letters. 

The letters would be kept? Yes. 

They will be in existence now? Yes. 

So that you can give the names of the persons to whom you sent those 
remedies, and their addresses? If I went and looked them up. 

Have you asked anybody to look them up? Had you told anybody 
before this ? I think my solicitor has been in communication with Munyons 

on the question. 

121 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Orippen 

So that if the names and addresses of the persons for whom you pre- 
scribed are in existence, he would know them? He would have been able 
to find them, I believe. 

Were you prescribing hyoscin for any of those patients? Yes. 

As a medicine? Yes. 

To be administered through the mouth? Decidedly. 

For what disease? Nervous diseases coughs of a septic character 
and asthmatic complaints. 

Is there any pharmacopoeia or medical work that you can refer to 
which advises the administration of hyoscin through the mouth for any 
disease whatever? I think if you refer to Hempel and Arndt's " Dictionary 
of Homoeopathic Therapeutics " you will find under the article " Hyos- 
cyamine " mention of hyoscyamine as being used in nervous diseases. 

Hyoscyamine and hyoscin are two totally different things ; I am asking 
you about hyoscin? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is very important with reference to a 
question put by one of the jurymen yesterday. If there is any book in 
which hyoscin is described or indicated as a medicine to be given by the 
mouth, you had better produce it? I have said that I think you will find 
it in that book. 

By Mr. MUIR Hyoscyamine you refer to? No hyoscin. 

You are talking about a book; what is the book? It is a homoeo- 
pathic book. 

Where is it? I have not seen a copy of it for ten or fifteen years. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This is a very vital matter for you, Dr. 
Crippen. If there is any book in which hyoscin is prescribed for use in 
this way, you had better produce the book. All you say is that you think 
there is such a book, but you have not seen it for twelve years. 

Mr. MUIR Fifteen years I think he said. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What is the book that you are thinking 
of? Hempel and Arndt's, I think the title is " The Dictionary of Homoeo- 
pathic Materia Medica "; it is a book in several volumes. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We will have that book sent for. 

Mr. MUIR I have not got that book, my lord. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Tobin, if there be such a book you had 
better have it sent for. It may be important. 

By Mr. MUIR Now, as I understand your evidence given yesterday, 
you put up into pillules some two- thirds of the 5 grains of hyoscin that 
you bought? No, I said all of it. Wait a moment. I do not think 
you comprehend the way in which I prepared it. 

As I understood your evidence of course, I may have totally mis- 
understood it you put it into pillules? I see what you mean, yes; I had 
used about two-thirds of the quantity. 

What became of the remaining third? It was left in the office wh< 
I went away. 

It ought to be there now? I should think it would be. 

Have you directed any search to be made for it? I have not. 

Nor suggested to anybody that it should be searched for? Yea, 
Mr. Newton has gone there to look. 
122 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Has he found it? He told me that he could not find any of my 
bottles that I left there. 

Where did you leave this quantity of hyoscin? It was in a cabinet 
in my private room. 

Can you give a number to the room? Room 58. 

Albion House? Yes. 

Who besides yourself ever used that room? Well, up to about three 
weeks before I left nobody but myself used that room. 

The last three weeks? The last three weeks I had put a dental 
chair in there, and occasionally used it as an extra room. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What you are asked is, did anybody 
use it besides yourself? It was then occasionally used for dental patients. 

By whom? By an assistant. 

What is his name? I am very bad at names; perhaps Mr. Newton 
can help me on that. 

Mr. NEWTON Was it Long? 

The WITNESS No, not Long; there was Dr. Rylance oh, it was 
Coulthard ; that is the name ; I have got it. 

By Mr. Mum Was that room locked when you left it? Never 
locked well, my rooms were always locked at night. 

Who had the key? Long had the key. 

Was that one of the keys that you sent him in the envelope? No; 
these were the keys 1 of the house. 

Will you look at exhibit 38 (handed). You wanted this hyoscin, 
as I understand you, for a perfectly legitimate purpose? Quite so. 

" Name of purchaser, Munyons, per H. H. Crippen "? Yes, I always 
bought my drugs in that way. 

"Address of purchaser, rooms 57 and 61"? "57 to 61," which 
includes my own offices and Munyona. 

"Purpose for which it is required, homoeopathic preparations"? 
Yes. 

Have you got any of those homoeopathic preparations left? Do you 
mean in my office? 

Which contained hyoscin? I have already given that answer. 

Pardon me, will you answer this question, have you got anywhere 
left any homoeopathic preparation into which you put this hyoscin? 
They were all sent out as they were made. 

You have none left? I have none left. 

Have you got here any patient to whom you sent such homoeopathic 
preparations? Mr. Newton has been looking the matter up; I do not 
know. 

Re-examined by Mr. TOBIN You arrived in England on Saturday, 
27th August? Yes. 

And were then taken into custody? Yes. 

And from that moment onwards you have been kept in prison? 
Right. 

The day after your arrival Mr. Newton saw you in the prison cells! ? 
Yes. 

123 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

And from that moment has he conducted your defence and looked 
after your interests? Entirely. 

He appeared for you before the magistrate? Yes. 

And he watched your interests at the coroner's inquiry? Yes; I left 
everything to him. 

One other point as regards dates. On 21st September you were 
committed for trial by the magistrate on this charge? Yes. 

And on 26th September the coroner's inquiry concluded? Yes. 

Five days later? Yes. 

As regards your making up prescriptions, for how many years about 
have you been making up prescriptions for patients? Well, off and on 
do you mean for treatment by correspondence for treatment by post? 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Sending people prescriptions; that is 
what Mr. Tobin means not a remedy, but a prescription? Oh, .seventeen 
or eighteen years. 

By Mr. TOBIN I have here some glasses. What do you call this? 
Is that a graduated glass? Yes, a graduated measure. 

That is used for prescriptions? Yes, for measuring prescriptions. 

How long have you had that about? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You must ask him first, is that one that 
he had? 

The WITNESS That is one that I used as a measure for ounces ; that 
is an ounce measure. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Where did it come from? We had that 
in Munyons. 

But where did you get it from to give to Mr. Newton? I think Mr. 
Newton got it himself from my office. 

That is what I thought. You may say that you had glasses like 
that, but you do not know where that has come from? I do not know- 
where that particular one came from, no. 

By Mr. TOBIN Now, had you constantly things like that glass which 
I show you? Yes. 

Will you tell the jury what it is called? This is a dropper; it is 
used for drops; it is so that you can get a drop at a time. 

When you release your finger a drop comes out? Yes. 

Then there are three other things. Will you tell the Court what 
they are called? These are testing glasses. 

You had testing tubes 1 , too? Yes. 

Now, was there something that you sent to patients called " ohrshob " f 
Yes. 

Is that a thing that you made up yourself or not? Decidedly yes 
entirely myself. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is that an ear salve? It was known* 
under the name of ohrshob as a special preparation. 

" Ohr," of course, is the German for " ear." What does " shob"' 
mean? It comes from " absorb "; there is the German word for " ear," 
and then " absorb." 

By Mr. TOBIN Was that something that you prescribed for deafness? 
Yes. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Has ohrshob got hyoscin in it? No. 

124 



nviaence tor ueience. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

By Mr. TOBIN I have a number of letters here. Is that one of the 
letters from some patient? Yes, that is one. 

What is the date of it ; you will find the date at the top, I think, the 
3rd October, 1908; is that right? There is another date here, when 
the letter was looked up again on the 6th January, 1909. 

The date I saw was the 3rd October, 1908? That is the date of the 
letter. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Let us keep to what is material. Does 
this prove more than that he had prescribed for people? 

Mr. TOBIN Nothing else, my lord. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You can take it generally that he did pre- 
scribe for people. (To Witness) Is that so? I have, yes. 

You had communicated with the patients in writing, and then pre- 
scribed for them? Yes, for a very long time. 

By Mr. TOBIN Is there any letter that you know of which refers to 
anything that you prescribed containing hyoscin? There should be plenty 
of letters with registered on the back, " Special nerve remedy." There 
should be plenty of those; it would not refer to " hyoscin." 

I have a number of letters here; you know what they are? Yes. 

They relate to prescriptions? Yes. 

The point is this, do any of those letters that I have got here, so far 
as you know, refer to prescriptions made up by you, containing hyoscin? 
There must be some there. 

Where did you get this hyoscin? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do keep to one thing at a time. I want 
you to have every opportunity it is most important that you should. 
If there is anything that he swears relates to a preparation containing 
hyoscin the date is of importance, and you are entitled to refer to it ; 
but simply to say that you have a number of letters from patients carries 
it no further than you have got in the general answer that he has for 
many years prescribed for patients. 

Mr. TOBIN My lord, I only wanted to find out which letter, if any, 
in this bundle refers to some prescription containing hyoscin. (To 
Witness) Can you tell me by looking? I think I can. 

I want anything which refers to a prescription containing hyoscin. 
Could you tell by looking? I should by looking. 

These are letters from patients, are they? Yes. (A number of letters 
were handed to the witness.) No, these are not the letters that would 
refer to that. 

I have no other letters. Were there any other letters? They were 
all in Munyons' files, not my files ; those come from my personal files. 

My friend Mr. Muir points out this 1 one to me; will you look at it. 
You mentioned yesterday the name of M'Sweeney. I do not know whether 
that letter (handed) bears in any way on the question whether you pre- 
scribed hyoscin? Yes, that is right. 

By the Lord CHIEF JUSTICE What is the date? 31st January, 1910. 
You will see " nerve tonic " there. 

By Mr. TOBIN Do you remember when you first began to use hyoscin ? 
About seventeen or eighteen years ago, when I was preparing remedies 
for Munyons in the laboratory. 

I 125 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvay Crippen 

In England or America? In America. 

You did use it in America? Yes, in a similar manner to -what I used 
it here. 

This is a letter from a gentleman named M'Sweeney in August, 1909; 

that cToes not refer to it at all, of course; but on the back of it 1 On 

the back there is registered the prescription and the date. 

On the back there is this " January 10th, Vilatiser; 31st, 4s. 6d. 
Sp. 1." What is that?" Special." 

Is that your handwriting? No; that is the girl who registered this 
for me. 

" 4s. 6d. Sp. 1 Blood and Nerve Tonic." What do you say that was? 
That is one of the remedies which contained hyoscin ; there should be 
many other letters. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I will admit that, as far as it goes, but it 
is not his entry at all; it is the entry of somebody else that she sent out 
a special nerve tonic. 

By Mr. TOBIN How long have you been in England do you say ten 
years? More than that twelve. 

Fifteen years, about? Yes. 

Is hyoscin a thing that you regularly kept in your place, or only very 
seldom? No, I never kept it until lately. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You forget his answer yesterday. He said 
that he bought it in America, but never in England until 19th January. 
You cannot put to him that he regularly kept it. 

By Mr. TOBEN Why did you buy it in England ? Because I wanted to 
prepare some special nerve remedies for some very obstinate cases. 

Obstinate cases of what? Nerve diseases, spasmodic ailments. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Now, Dr. Crippen, listen to me. We 
have heard a description of your wife and her habits by these witnesses as 
to her vivacious manner and bright spirits, and all that. Apart from the 
quarrels with you, which I quite understand, you agree' in that description, 
I understand? Yes. 

To her friends she was amiable and pleasant? Yes, to the outside 
world she was extremely amiable and pleasant. 

To the outside world extremely amiable and popular? Yes. 

As she has been described, quite bright and vivacious? Occasionally 
she had quarrels with her friends, and would not speak to them for a time. 

This skeleton in the house and quarrel with you were not known to 
her friends I gather? Not at all. 

Was she fond of jewellery? She was very anxious to have plenty to 
wear. 

And fond of dress ? Very fond of fine clothes if she could get them. 

And very fond of jewellery? Yes. 

You came back on the evening of 1st February and found she had gone. 
You had no idea of her going until you found she had gone? No, any more 
than she had done before. 

She had threatened you so often before 'that you thought it was only 
her threat? That is all. 

Did you examine the house? Yes, I went right through the house. 
128 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Were her clothes in the usual place, hanging up? No; in the back 
bedroom, where she kept most of her clothes, there were lots of clothes 
strewn about. 

Are you able to tell us of any clothes that she took away? No, she 
had an immense lot of clothes ; I could not define any special clothes that 
she took. 

Are you able to tell us whether on that evening you discovered that 
any trunk had been taken away? No, I could not swear to that. 

Of course, it is extremely important for your own interests if you can 
do it, and I thought I had better ask you. Did you ascertain that night 
that any trunk or any quantity of clothes had been taken from the house ? 
No, I did not see any ; I mean to say, I did not miss any. 

Except the few rings and the watch that she had before her marriage, 
according to you, all the jewellery was left behind? Yes. 

She had been wearing this jewellery previously on her visits to these 
people? Yes. 

Where did you find that? I found it up in her bedroom. 

Now, I want to put to you again specifically what Mr. Muir has put 
to you that your wife, having threatened many times to go, had at last 
gone; did you take no steps to find out where she had gone? No, I did not. 

Whether she had gone abroad ? No, because she had been threatening 
to go so often. 

But you took no steps? No, I took no steps. 

Then I understand you to say that you took no steps right away up 
to the 8th of July? No, not at all. 

Now, up to the 8th of July I understand you had no idea of changing 
your name? Not at all. 

Or disguising yourself? Not at all. 

Or disguising Miss Le Neve? Not at all. 

You had heard nothing to arouse your suspicions at all? No charge 
was made, and I never expected one; I had no reason. 

Except this what you have described very properly as a mass of wicked 
lies you had nothing to disturb your mind at all? Nothing to disturb 
my mind in any way. 

Now, I want you to tell the jury, please, the upshot of what Mr. Dew 
said to you on the 8th which alarmed you. I want you to repeat all that 
he said which you say alarmed you ? Mr. Dew said to me that if I could 
not find my wife there would be very serious trouble in store for me. 

Anything else? Well, he repeated that in two or three different forms, 
but that is the gist of what he said to me. 

Do you represent to the jury that a woman who was, we will say, going 
wrong, or had got relations with another man, is anything uncommon or 
extraordinary? Do I think it is anything uncommon? 

Yes. You know you have spoken of it in answer to Mr. Muir as a 
scandal; but, assuming that your wife had left to go with another man, 
do you represent you are a man of the world that that is anything 
uncommon? I do not think it is anything uncommon, but I am very 
sensitive to any censure or any scandal of that kind. 

I quite understand it, and you tried to get rid of that scandal by what 

127 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

you said. I want you to tell the jury what was the charge which up to 
that time you thought might be brought against you when Mr. Dew told 
you that there would be trouble on 8th July? I did not think there was 
any specific charge, except that I might be arrested and held on suspicion. 
I do not know law at all ; but, of course, I have been a reader of romances 
to a great extent, and I had an idea that I might be arrested and held on 
suspicion until she was found. 

You ask the jury to believe that that was your motive in going away 
because you thought you might be arrested and held on suspicion? On 
suspicion, yes. 

I gather that up to Dew's coming to your house you had no suspicion 
or fear of any kind? Not at all, not the slightest. 

Now, I also understand you to tell Mr. Muir that if those pyjamas 
were bought after 1905, how they got into your cellar you cannot explain? 
No, I have no idea. 

Now, I must ask you a question or two about the last part of your 
evidence to Mr. Muir, and also your answers to Mr. Tobin. Did you keep 
a prescription book or not ? No, I never kept a prescription book. 

Did you write out any prescriptions? No. 

Never? Homoeopathic physicians do not write out prescriptions. 

I did not ask you about what homoeopathic physicians did. When you 
talk of prescriptions for patients you mean sending out medicines, do you? 
I mean preparing and sending medicines. The word " prescription " is 
a wrong word. 

Now, you told us yesterday that you never bought any hyoscin in 
England until 19tIT January? Yes. 

Did you ever buy any afterwards? No. 

You were in England for nearly six months, from 19th January to 8th 
of July? Yes. 

And you did not buy any during that time? No. 

Were you going on prescribing this remedy? Yes. 

You bought no more? No, there was still some left. 

I am not speaking only of what was left, but of the things that were 
made up. Was the cabinet locked? No, the cabinet was not locked. 

Was there any other poisonous stuff I mean drugs which might be 
poisonous, but used for medicine in the cabinet besides the hyoscin? 
There was some aconite, some gelsemium, some belladonna* 

All left by you? All left by me, yes. 

Now, you told Mr. Muir that you spent the 80 and the 115 partly 
in advertisements the greater part, you said? The greater part in 
advertising. 

Have you any account with anybody for the advertisements? The 
books will all be found in my office. 

I am not speaking of the books in your office; I am speaking of the 
evidence here. Have you any one who will come and speak to your spend- 
ing money in advertisements? Well, outside the advertising, I can give 
the names of the papers; will that do? 

You can do what you like. I am asking you this question. If you 
know how much you paid to any particular man it would be of some 
128 



Evidence for Defence. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

importance to you. Are any of the people here to whom you paid money? 
In Court, no. 

Are any of the people to whom you paid money after 31st January, or 
2nd of February to be quite accurate, coming as your witnesses or not? 
No, I am not calling such witnesses. 

You told Mr. Muir, and I think you told me too, that the first you 
heard of Mr. Newton was by telegram? Yes. 

At Quebec? Yes. 

Did you know him before? Well, I knew him as a reputable 

I did not ask you whether you knew him by reputation ; did you know 
him personally? I met him about twelve years ago, I think, in opposition 
to me in a case I had at Marlborough Street. 

Nobody is disputing his ability or hisi position not the least in the 
world. I am referring to an answer which I did not understand at first. 
You said you got a telegram from Mr. Newton? Yes. 

Do you know how he came to telegraph to you? Yes, one of my 
friends asked him to telegraph to me. 

Do you know who that friend is? Yes. 

You can give his name if necessary; I do not ask for more than that? 
Yes. 

Then having received a telegram from him, you replied to it? I 
immediately replied asking him to conduct my defence. 

And, as you have told Mr. Muir and Mr. Tobin, since you have been 
home you have told him everything you could ? Told him everything, and 
left everything entirely in hie hands. 

As you have told us, of course, you know the gravity of this charge, 
and that if you found your wife there is an end to the whole thing? Yes. 

Why did you not let that advertisement that you drafted on 8th of 
July go to the Press? Because I 

Just think before you answer. You are urged by Dew to find your 
wife? To do the best I could. 

You believing her to be alive? Believing her to be alive. 

You draft the advertisement? Yes. 

Why did you not send it to the Press? I left it there because I left it 
behind me when I went away, and I thought it was no use my bothering. 

I have put this to you in order to understand your position, and I am 
anxious to do so. The first suspicion that passed your mind was on the 
8th? Yes. 

After this long interview you were desired by Dew to find your wife, 
and an advertisement is drawn up; why did you not advertise for her 
you had not changed your name then ; why did not you advertise for her? 
Because I dropped the matter at once when I went away. 

But you had not gone on the 8th, and you said to Mr. Muir that you 
did not make up your mind to go until the morning of the 9th? I did 
not think they would bother with me after I got out of England. 

You did not think if you got out of England the police would trouble 
any more about it? I did not think they would trouble any more; I did 
not think the case was of sufficient importance to them for that. 

Why did you go by Antwerp? Because I thought I could get a cheap 
trip that way; in fact, it was a very cheap trip. 

129 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Did you find out that there was a boat going from Antwerp? Oh, I 
Lad been that way before. 

Did you know when the boat sailed? No, I did not know till after I 
was there. 

After you disguised Miss Le Neve, as you told us, you passed under 
a false name? Yes, after that time. 

[A communication from the jury was handed to his lordship.] 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Your question, sir, is a little argumentative, 
but I will put it to him. 

(To Witness) You say that you remember Hempel & Arndt's book? 
Yes. 

Which you have not seen for fifteen years? Yes. 

Do you remember what the contents of the book were as regards 
quantities or anything of that kind? Do you mean as to hyoscin? 

Yes, I do? No, I cannot remember now. 

What? I cannot remember what the doses were. 

I will put the question suggested (a very proper question) in a different 
way. Can you tell us any work which tells people the safe quantity of 
hyoscin that can be used by the mouth as distinguished from the dangerous 
quantity? I will deal with it in this way. I may say there are what we 
may call two classes of medicines, allopathic and homoeopathic. 

You had better answer the question first? I cannot answer it. 

Can you mention any book which tells you the safe quantity of hyoscin 
to be used? Yes, the British Pharmacopoeia tells the safe quantity. 

A JUROR I understand that the prisoner said that he got the informa- 
tion about hyoscin from this particular publication that he has men- 
tioned 

The LORD CHEEP JUSTICE Yes. 

The JUROR What we want to know is, ii he can remember after all 
these years the particular quantity of hyoscin that would be safely used in 
administering the drug. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Quite right, but that is a matter of comment. 
If we are to have that, we must have the book here. 

(To Witness) Do you know whether that book gave you the safe 
quantity or not? They would only recommend 

Do you know? They do not recommend the doses in those books. If 
you would not mind my explaining, I could put it very clearly. 

You may explain if you wish? The allopathic books give you a 
specific dose, but the homoeopathic booka simply say, " an infinitesimal 
dose," which means a very minute dose like the 10,000th of a grain. 

Will you call attention to any book that recommends hyoscin as a drug 
to be taken internally? You say Hempel & Arndt's book did so; if so, you 
must produce it? That is the only one I can think of at the present time. 

Dr. GILBERT MAITLAND TURNBULL, examined by Mr. TOBIN I am, 
director of the Pathological Institute at the London Hospital. The con- 
ducting of post-mortem examinations falls to my department. I am Master 
of Arts, a Doctor of Medicine, a Bachelor of Surgery of the University of 
Oxford, a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, London, a licentiate 
130 



Evidence for Defence. 

DP. Turnbull 

of the Royal College of Physicians, and I am also a member of the Patho- 
logical Society of Great Britain, which is the largest pathological institute 
in the United Kingdom. In 1907, 1908, and 1909 the average number of 
post-mortem examinations made under my supervision was 1251 each year. 
Complete microscopic investigations are carried out under my supervision. 
I devote the whole of my time to that and to the microscopic examination 
of similar material that is sent down by the surgeons. I have on three 
occasions 9th September, 15th and 17th October seen the piece of skin 
and flesh that is now shown to me. On 9th September a slice about 4 
inches long was made across that piece of skin by Mr. Pepper. That slice 
goes across the right hand of what has been called the horse-shoe depression 
as the skin lies on the tray. The cut does not go across the folded side 
of the so-called horse shoe which Mr. Pepper thinks is a scar it goes 
across and beyond on each side of the so-called scar. There is another cut 
through this other limb of the depression which was made by Dr. Spilsbury ; 
I think it is said that Dr. Spilsbury made it the same day. That cut goes 
beyond the fold on either side, and goes outside it on each side. I have 
examined the portions removed by this cut and a third cut that was made. 
First of all, one single long cut was made at our request. There was a 
piece removed, up by the fold, and then a second piece from the so-called 
scar, and then a third piece from the edge, completely outside the scar. 
I have examined those three bits with the microscope. 

Does your microscopical examination enable you to say whether that 
is a scar in fact, or which one of those bits was cut? It enables me to 
say that it cannot possibly be a scar. I have formed that opinion because 
of certain structures which are found in this area which is described as a 
soar, and which have never been found in a scar before. First of all, there 
are two groups of hair follicles. In one group there are three hair follicles, 
and in the other there are two hair follicles. A hair follicle is the sheath 
round the hair. In these follicles or sheaths the hairs are also to be seen 
cut in cross-sections. In addition to that, one finds in two of the sections 
in relation to these hairs, as one would expect, a large piece of sebaceous 
gland, and then another large piece in another section of the same sebaceous 
or fatty gland. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE In all that I am saying about the hair 
follicles I am referring to what I discovered on the piece which isi cut through 
the mark. These are the structures the hair follicles containing hairs and 
the sebaceous gland. There is another portion of a fatty tissue I might 
mention, I think, because it is a most important landmark, as it could not 
be present in a stretched scar a bay or outer process- of the fatty tissue 
which lies below this true skin which is found within the area, described as 
a scar. That could not exist, and it is an important landmark, because it 
may be found in the sections of all the six slices that have been cut. This 
portion of fatty tissue coming into the true skin, as it is called we could 
tell by that landmark very clearly ; we could trace through each of the six 
sections any structure that we see in one. Six strips have been taken 
from the piece cut along the mark, and they all show the fatty tissue. 

Examination continued Is there any other reason why you say that 
in your opinion that cannot have been a scar? One of these reasons would 
be sufficient. 

131 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Dr. Turnbull 



You are asked if there is any other. If there is another weaker reason 
I will not trouble, but are those the best? Those are the best, and in my 
opinion they are conclusive. If that mark on one side is not in fact a 
scar it was caused by folding of the skin by pressure, which allowed the skin 
in that area to get somewhat dried; the juices, as it were, are somewhat 
dried. It is quite a practicable thing to handle that bit of skin to indicate 
how it was folded. [The witness indicated how it was folded.] That, in 
my opinion, would account for the mark which has been called a scar. 
There are markings near the so-called scar to indicate that there must 
have been pressure of some material. As to the pattern of the material, it is 
visible to the naked eye, as I explain to the jury. [The witness explained 
to the jury.] 

Take now the clean long cut right through the area of the so-called 
scar and beyond it on each side have you any remark to make about the 
cut edges shown by that long straight cut? What I should like to say 
is that taking the two cuts, the one that passes through one groove and the 
other that passes through the other groove, examining the cut edges of 
these cuts in both grooves, one finds the same appearance. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You say that, taking right through the 
area of the so-called scar and the cut of what is called the fold, you find 
the same appearance? That is it. 

Examination continued If one cut had been really through a scar, 
would you expect the same appearance in both cuts or not? No. 

What different appearance would there have been in the out through the 
so-called scar, if it really was a scar? There would be no reason for a scar 
to have this clear, transparent, horny appearance that both these cut 
surfaces have. That is not the appearance of a scar in section at all ; that 
is due to this drying from the folding. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If it was a scar I would not have expected 
the horny appearance which I find in both cuts. 

Cross-examined by Mr. MUIR I am a qualified surgeon, but I never 
do any surgery; I am a specialist, and I only do this work. I cannot say 
definitely what part of the body that piece of skin comes from, but I have 
a very good idea. I think that the best explanation is that it comes from 
the lowest part of the abdomen. 

Then you do agree that it cornea from the lower part? I will not 
disagree. 

Do you, with your great experience, agree that it does come from the 
lower part of the abdomen? I will admit 

I am not talking about what you admit; you are not here to make 
admissions. You are asked to say, with your great experience, to the best 
of your honest judgment, from what part that wai taken? Then I would 
say the abdomen. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Please remember that you are not here as 
an advocate, but as a witness, and the word " admit " is not the right word 
to use. 

By Mr. MUIR When I first examined that piece of flesh I formed a 
different opinion as to the part of the body it had come from. I put that 
opinion in writing, but I did not give a definite opinion. I have never 
132 



Evidence for Defence. 

Dr. Turnbull 

beei present while Mr. Pepper, Dr. Spilsbury, or Dr. Willcox have been 
sxajained or cross-examined. 

Was it by your -wish that you were not present? No, I cannot say 
thai well, I think I ought to modify that. It was not by my wish, but 
I tkink I had said before, at the very beginning, when I was asked to 
undertake this, that I hoped it would not mean having to give evidence. 

Did you give your first opinion on that understanding? I had been 
premised that I would not be called at all as a witness. 

You gave your first opinion upon the understanding that you would 
not be called as a witness 1 No, I would not say that. I went to see these 
remains on that understanding. I had been promised at the very start 
that I would not be called as a witness. Since then Mr. Pepper, Dr. 
Willcox, and Dr. Spilsbury have been cross-examined upon what was 
suggested in my opinion. I have not been present to hear the reasons they 
gave for their opinions, but I had a copy of their depositions sent to me. 

After you had seen their answers to the questions put upon your 
opinion did you alter your opinion? Not because of any such questions 
oh, it must be so. 

Please answer my question? I altered my opinion considerably after 
the second time I examined that piece. 

I asked you whether you altered your opinion after you had seen the 
reasons they gave for their opinions? Yes, it must have been after that. 

In your opinion which you first gave, did you state that the aponeurosis 
was absent from that piece of flesh? No, I said that I thought there was 
an absence of the aponeurosis characteristic of the abdomen. There were 
aponeuroses there. My opinion now is that that is from the lower part of 
the abdominal wall. 

Did you find there the abdominal muscle? Which abdominal muscle? 

The rectus abdominis? Yes, I think so. 

Is that muscle in life attached to the pubic bone by a tendon? Yes. 

Do you find there part of the tendon which had attached that muscle 
to the pubic bone? I had not seen that. 

Do you see it now? No. [Dr. Spil&bury pointed out what was sug- 
gested as the tendon.] 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Now, what is your answer? It is not 
where I should expect it from the dissections I have made. 

You are asked whether you can see the presence or traces of the presence 
of the tendon which attaches the muscle to the pubic bone. Your last 
answer is that the abdominal muscle is attached to the pubic bone by the 
tendon. Do you say that it is there or is not? I do not think this is it. 

You say you do not find it? There is a tendon there, and if that is 
the rectus it is. 

Please answer this one way or the other; it is most important. Do 
you find that tendon there or not? Yes. 

By Mr. Mum Is that tendon attached to a muscle which is at present 
loose behind the piece of skin? Yes. 

If you pull that muscle down to what in life would be the bottom of 
the piece of flesh, does it come into the position in which it would be 
attached to the pubic bone ? Pull it down now and then answer my ques- 

133 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. Turnbull 

tion? It does not naturally; it pulls it out of position. You can pill it 
into that position. 

If you pull it up as far as it will go in the other direction, ii the 
direction of the navel, in what position is it? It goes right up, marly 
4J inches up. 

Would it then be behind the navel? It might be behind the navel. 

Have you any doubt that this piece of skin is part of the abdomen ? 
Yes. 

You have? Yes. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do listen, Dr. Turnbull. 

By Mr. Mum What part of the body do you suggest it comes fiom 
if not from the abdomen? I have told you, and I do not think you can 
have a better explanation. 

What part does it come from if not from the abdomen? From ihe 
upper part of the thigh. 

The LOED CHIEF JUSTICE I am in a great difficulty here. I understood 
this witness to say in examination-in-chief that in his opinion this piece 
of skin did come from the abdominal wall. That was the best suggestion 
he could make. When I misunderstood Mr. Tobin's cross-examination, and 
thought that he suggested that it came from another part of the body, 
Mr. Tobin said that I was wrong. I think now we must proceed on the 
hypothesis that it does come from the abdominal wall, in accordance with 
the evidence of the other witnesses. 

By Mr. Mura Now, will you kindly read what you said in your 
original report about this piece of flesh, not coming from the abdominal 
wall? " We are of opinion that that skin does not come from the abdomen 
for the following reasons." (Reads.) That is a joint opinion along with 
Dr. Wall. 

You now tell us that the characteristic aponeurosis is present in that 
piece of skin? The aponeurosis, I think, is characteristic. 

Was Dr. Wall also promised that he would not be called as a witness 
before he signed that report? No, he was not. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I should say that I had had twenty 
minutes' examination of this specimen with Dr. Wall before I wrote the 
report in which I said that there was no aponeurosis present. 

By Mr. Mura Do you find on the side of that piece of flesh, which 
would be the left side in life, some transverse muscles on the deepest surfaoe 
of the specimen? Yes. 

The fibres running in two directions, one super-imposed on the other? 
In one direction, certainly. 

Do those correspond with the fibres of the internal oblique muscle and 
the transversalis muscle of the abdomen? They could, I think. 

But do they? It is really impossible to say that. They might corre- 
spond, but they are so altered that you cannot see. 

If they do correspond, would that not show beyond question that they 
came from the abdominal wall? Yes. 

Do you find a mark on that piece of skin which shows the incision 
made for the purpose of an operation? No. 

Do you know the American method of stitching the abdominal wall 
134 



Evidence for Defence. 

Dr. Turnbull 

where it is cut open for the purposes of an operation, the method by which 
the stitches do not come to the surface except at the beginning and at the 
end? There are several methods. 

So that there would be only one stitch there if that method of operation 
were used? Yes. I did not find the mark of a stitch there. In opening 
the wall of the abdomen for the purpose of an operation, first of all the 
incision is made, then the wall is pulled asunder, the organs are removed, 
and the abdominal wall is sewn up. It is not a common thing for part 
of the epidermis to be enfolded when the wall is sewn up again, but I have 
seen it happen in a few cases, very few. The surgeon always takes some 
instruments and turns up the edges to prevent that after he has put in 
the suture. 

I put it to you that it is not at all uncommon in that condition? I 
do not agree. Of course, it does happen, and I have seen the edges turned 
in. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Not quite the edges turned in, but the 
result of the edges being turned in is that a bit of the epidermis gets enfolded 
or below the folds of the scar? I have only read of that. 

By Mr. Mum You have never seen it? No. 

So that you are not familiar with the appearance of such a case? Yes, 
but not from operation ; from accidents it is very familiar. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am familiar with the appearance of an 
accident scar, not an operation scar where the epidermis has got enfolded 
or below the folds of the scar. 

By Mr. Mum I am talking about an operation scar? The appear- 
ances are similar. 

How do you know if you have never seen them? I have read about 
them. I have never seen an operation scar where part of the epidermis 
has been enfolded in the wound. 

Then you cannot tell me what takes place when such a wound heals ? 
Yes, I have seen this phenomenon of which you are speaking when, for 
instance, a man has fallen upon his hand here and cut his hand, causing 
an incision like an operation, and it has been allowed to heal, and he has 
got such an included epidermis. 

That is the nearest you have ever come to seeing such a case? Yes. 

Now, I put it to you that in such a case as I have described the 
inclusion of epidermis in the incision made for the purposes of an operation, 
was easily mistaken for sebaceous glands? For one sebaceous gland, but 
not easily. 

For sebaceous glands is my question? No. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What Mr. Muir is putting to you is* that 
where you get the flesh included you might find one or more sebaceous 
glands, what I will call in between the lips of the scar? No, I would not 
agree with that at all. I think what he puts is that the appearance of 
such an incision might be mistaken for a sebaceous gland. Is that so? 

Not for one sebaceous gland, but for sebaceous glands. Sebaceous 
glands are distributed over the epidermis, are they not? Yes. Would you 
mind making this clearer to me? 

136 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Dr. Turnbull 



You have said that it might be mistaken for one sebaceous gland, but 
not for more. We do not understand what you mean by that? I know 
the appearance of these inclusions, because I know that the accidental ones 
are similar to those in operations. I have never seen one in an operation 
scar, but I have, of course, read about them. Such inclusion might by 
somebody unaccustomed to the microscope be mistaken. 

By Mr. Mum We are not talking about people unaccustomed to the 
microscope. We are talking about people like Mr. Spilsbury. I am sug- 
gesting to you that persons accustomed to the microscope might be deceived ? 
No, I will not agree with that. The epidermis is composed of cells, 
which are called epithelial cells. I do not think that those cells might be 
mistaken for sebaceous glands. The cells lining hair follicles have a 
similar appearance. 

If the epithelial cells were included in a healed scar, might they not be 
mistaken for sebaceous glands or for hair follicles? Not for hair follicles 
with the hair, because the hair has such a very special structure that you 
could not mistake it for anything else. 

Not if included? Not in an old scar, no. I do not think you under- 
stand. 

I think I do. Pray give me the credit for understanding it. 
By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do not get into controversy with Mr. 
Muir; do not suggest that he does not understand what he is putting. You 
say not hair follicles? No. 

By Mr. Muni I say no, because there is no resemblance; they would 
not be at all alike. 

What is the difference? Between a hair follicle with a hair and an 

included 

A hair follicle without a hair; I am talking of the hair follicle, not 
the hair. Might an epithelial cell not be mistaken for a hair follicle in- 
cluded in a clean scar? Would you repeat the question to me? 

No, sir, I will not. The horny appearance in that is due, you say, 
to drying? Yes. The first occasion we saw it was on 9th September. It 
had been out of the grave since 14th July. I cannot remember what 
happened to it in between those two dates. 

Might it have dried between those two dates? No the skin might 
have dried, yes. 

Re-examined by Mr. TOBIN I was not present here in Court the first 
three days. My time is valuable, and I have duties to attend to. I was 
supplied by Mr. Newton with copies of the depositions, and I have been 
supplied daily during the progress of this trial with copies of the evidence 
of the medical gentlemen at the trial. 

From start to finish, as regards the scar, have you ever wavered in 
your opinion that that was not a scar? No. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You said in your first report that you and 
Dr. Wall were of opinion that no aponeurosis was present? No charac- 
teristic aponeurosis. May I read my report again? " The aponeuroses, 
so characteristic of the abdominal wall, were not present." I definitely 
wrote a different opinion after the second examination on 15th March. 

Up to that time you had let the advisers be under the opinion that 
136 



Evidence for Defence. 

Dr. Turnbull 

what you thought was the absence of aponeurosis was conclusive against 
it being the lower part of the stomach? No, I had simply said 

Do attend. Had you told them you had changed your opinion before 
18th October? No. 

Up to that time you had let Mr. Newton and the advisers be under the 
impression contained in your first opinion? Yes oh, no, I beg your 
pardon I had asked Mr. Newton before if we could not see the specimen 
again to confirm our opinion. 

When did you first communicate to Mr. Newton that that opinion of 
yours had changed? On 15th October. 

Now, I want Mr. Pepper to go beside the witness. It is unfortunate 
that you did not hear Mr. Pepper's evidence I do not say that it is your 
fault at all. In the first place, let me ask this, have you yourself seen old 
scars of ovarian operations? Yes. 

Now, Mr. Pepper, will you kindly point out to the witness the three 
dimensions that you spoke of, and let Dr. Turnbull see what you mean. 
[Mr. Pepper did so.] Now, having had that pointed out by Mr. Pepper, 
I want to ask this, is it or is it not characteristic of abdominal operations 
that the scar is wider at the bottom than at the top? 

Mr. PEPPER Certainly. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I did not ask you, Dr. Pepper. I was asking 
Dr. Turnbull. 

Mr. PEPPER I beg your pardon, my lord. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Perhaps you had better leave Dr. Turnbull 
now. Before you go you might point out the three points we were referring 
to. [Mr. Pepper showed by marking with pins the three positions, and 
the plate was handed to the jury.] Now, Dr. Turnbull, is it in accordance 
with your experience that the mark of a scar from ovariotomy is wider at 
the bottom of the abdomen, or the lower part of the abdomen, than it is 
higher up? No. I have read that one of the witnesses here said that he 
had performed many hundreds of operations, and that the scar, as a rule, 
was wider at the bottom than it was at the top. I do not agree with that. 
I have never performed any operations myself, but I have examined scars 
of ovariotomy. 

You say that that is untrue? No, you asked for my experience; I do 
not say it is untrue. It is not my experience that the scar is generally 
wider at the bottom than at the top. 

Does the fact that there is that difference of what I will call a mark 
affect your judgment at all? Yes, if it is said to be a stretched scar, I 
should have thought it would be stretched to its widest in a different 
position. 

I am talking about the scar on the lower part of the woman's stomach? 
It might be stretched one inch. 

I put it as Mr. Pepper has shown it, that the skin has finally healed ,. 
showing a mark which is seven-eighths of an inch at the lower part, an 
inch and three-quarters higher up, and a quarter of an inch another inch 
and three-quarters higher up. Would that affect your judgment at all as 
to its being a scar or not? I think that is against it being a scar. 

Do you say that a mark of that kind could be caused by folding, that 
is to isay, a mark which is wider at the bottom and narrows up ? Yes. 

137 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Dr. Wall 



Dr. REGINALD CECIL WALL, examined by Mr. TOBIN I am a Master 
of Arts, a Doctor of Medicine of the University of Oxford, a Fellow of the 
Royal College of Physicians, London, and a member of the Royal College 
of Surgeons. I obtained the Fitzgerald Exhibition at Queen's College, 
Oxford. The examination for that is in classical subjects, and has nothing 
to do with medicine. I obtained the Andrew Clark Exhibition in medi- 
cine and pathology at the London Hospital. I am assistant physician 
to the London Hospital, and also to the hospital for consumptives at 
Brompton. Until the beginning of this year I was one of the pathologists 
to the London Hospital. I am an examiner in materia medico, at the 
Apothecaries Hall. I am a Fellow of the Medical Society of London, and 
also of the Royal Society of Medicine. I am the author of various medical 
works. I was demonstrator of physiology for two years at the London 
Hospital College. I have seen the piece of skin and flesh which was before 
the last witness. I saw it first on 9th September, second on 15th October, 
and third on 17th October. I was present when Mr. Pepper made one 
transverse cut across the piece of skin, including the site of what he said 
was a scar. I was not present when Dr. Spilsbury made the subsequent 
cuts for the removal of pieces of skin for microscopical examination. On 
15th October my examination of the piece of skin commenced at 11.30 and 
finished at 4.15. It was an examination with the eye and with a hand 
lens, not a microscopical examination. At the second examination on 17th 
October we saw the piece of skin for a third time to identify certain 
points that we wanted to confirm; and the remainder of the time we were 
present we were examining the microscopic sections which had been pre- 
pared by Dr. Spilsbury. The time spent over that examination was a little 
over two hours, mainly on the microscopical examination. 

As the result of those examinations is that one groove one limb of 
the so-called horse shoe in your opinion a scar or not? In my opinion 
it is not a scar. I could not see on inspection by the naked eye or with tJie 
hand lens such an appearance as I should have expected to find if there 
had been a scar in that situation. I found appearances which I could 
explain much more easily on the supposition that the skin had been folded 
in that region. Secondly, after the incision which had been made by 
Mr. Pepper very kindly, I did not, on examining the cut surfaces of the 
edges of the skin, find such an alteration in structure as I should have 
expected had there been originally a scar, and on comparing the cut 
surface at the site where the scar was alleged to be I did not find that 
the appearance of the cut surface differed from the appearance of the 
cut surface of the other part of the groove where it is admitted there is 
no scar. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Either right or left of the scar you did 
not find any differences? At the site of where I understood the scar was 
supposed to be I found appearances which corresponded with the appear- 
ances in the opposite limb of the groove the other limb of the groove. 
In the part which is supposed to be a scar the appearance seemed to me 
to resemble the cut edge of the part of the groove which was admitted not 
to be a scar. 

Examination continued I should have expected that if the two cut 
138 



Evidence for Defence. 

DP. Wall 

surfaces were not of the same nature it would not have presented the same 
appearance. 

What different appearance would you have expected from a part 
which really came from a true scar? That is a very difficult question to 
answer. The different new tissue may assume various appearances in 
different circumstances. All that I should have expected would be that 
it presented a different appearance not the same appearance. On my 
examination with the naked eye I saw no structures which could not 
occur in a scar. On microscopical examination I observed traces of hair 
follicles, five in number, and a sebaceous gland apparently one; that is, 
in the region called a scar. Outside the region called a scar there were 
other hairs and other sebaceous glands similar in appearance to those in 
the so-called scar. 

You said that the appearance would be much more easily explained 
by the skin being folded. Would you mind having the tray before you 
and showing the jury what you mean by that? What I meant by that 
was this The first edge folds over like that (describing), and the second 
edge seemed naturally to fold over like that (describing). A member of 
the jury asks if it would be more marked in the upper part of the skin 
if it had been folded. I think the reason for that is that some substance, 
same fabric, was placed in here, besides the two sides of the fold. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There are no traces of the fabric in the 
outer roll. I imagine that the piece of skin had been folded up like that 
(describing) roughly and thrown into the grave. 

Do you mean accidentally or deliberately? Accidentally. 

By a JUROR Could it have been kept in that position? It could 
have been kept in that position if it had been held there by some sub- 
stance lying on it. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If put into that position it would remain 
in that position until something came on top of it? Something falling 
on the top of it might have rolled it back into that position. 

Examination continued I have not been in attendance daily at this 
particular part of the case. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE You say that to produce what you have 
described it must have been rolled over twice, and you said, accidentally 
rolled over. Would it remain in the rolled-over position if it was put or 
thrown down without something being on the top of it? No, I do not 
know that it would. 

If rolled over twice, as has been described, that would keep it in 
that position until the super-incumbent weight comes upon it? It might 
have been rolled over by something falling upon it. 

Twice? Well, if we throw a cloth into a basket it will roll over a 
good many times. 

You think it could have been rolled over twice by something? I 
think it is very easy to explain it in that way. 

Examination continued I have not been in attendance daily at this 
trial, as my time is valuable and I have important duties. A copy of the 
depositions given by the medical men at the Police Court was sent to me 
by the solicitor for the defence, Mr. Newton, and day by day during the 

139 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

DP. Wall 

progress of this trial I have been supplied with a copy of the Daily Mail 
report of the evidence. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Mum I have been dependent for the medical 
details given by those gentlemen who were called as expert witnesses in 
this case for the prosecution upon a newspaper report. I have had no 
other means of knowing what the reasons were that they gave for their 
opinions. 

Were you a party to a report before any of those experts were cross- 
examined at the Police Court? Yes. I did not hear any of the medical 
experts for the Crown give their evidence either at the Police Court or 
here. I have been present in Court to-day, and have heard Dr. Turnbull 
examined and cross-examined. He is the only medical witness in this 
case that I have heard examined or cross-examined. I agree with Dr. 
Turnbull practically entirely; there is no essential detail in which I dis- 
agree I do not think there is any detail at all. 

Did you read this passage in the copy of the depositions sent to you 
" If Dr. Wall and Dr. Turnbull say that there is an entire absence of 
apeneouroses, I should say it is due to forgetfulness or defective observa- 
tion " 1 Yes, I did. 

That waa a question which professedly was put upon your report? I 
believe it was. 

Did you report that there was an entire absence of aponeuroses? 
No. The report that Dr. Turnbull has just read was a joint report of 
ourselves. I reported thalt the aponeuroses so characteristic of the 
abdominal wall were not present. 

That was a report of the absence of aponeuroses ? Of the characteristic 
aponeuroses. 

Of the absence of aponeuroses such as you would find in the abdominal 
wall? It was different from the entire absence of aponeuroses mentioned 
in the depositions. I did not say that the aponeuroses were entirely 
absent; I eimply said in this report that we did not recognise the 
aponeuroses which we considered to be characteristic of the abdominal 
wall. The words of the report are " The aponeuroses so characteristic 
of the abdominal wall were not present." 

That refers to an entire absence of the aponeuroses of the abdominal 
wall. Is that not so? I do not see why you put it in those words; it 
seems to me a very different statement. 

By the LORD CBIEF JUSTICE What is "entirely absent"? The 
aponeuroses characteristic of the abdominal wall. I do not say aponeuroses, 
because there are aponeuroses in all sorts of parts of the body. Our sole 
point is that the aponeuroses characteristic of the abdominal wall were 
absent. I am quite willing to admit that we have modified that opinion 
since. 

By Mr. Mum Nothing was said about my giving or not giving evidence 
when I signed that report. I was first asked to give evidence on Saturday 
last, I think. There was a further examination at the general request 
of Dr. Turnbull and myself after we had read the evidence of Mr. Spilsbury, 
Mr. Pepper, and Dr. Willcox. We made that request for a further 
examination on Tuesday or Wednesday of last week, two or three days 
140 



Evidence for Defence. 

Dr. Wall 

before we actually made the second examination, which was on the 15th. 
I was asked to give evidence after we had made the second examination, 
and before we had made the third. After our second examination we made 
a verbal report, saying that we were not so certain that the piece of skin 
did not come from the abdominal wall. My opinion now is, that it may 
have come from the abdominal wall, but there is not sufficient evidence 
to say definitely where it comes from. I think it probably does come from 
the abdominal wall. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The two parts of the body from which 
it might be derived, as we thought when we first saw the piece of skin, 
were the lower part of the abdomen and the upper part of the thigh on the 
inner side. We reported that in our opinion it probably did not come 
from the abdominal wall; that is the opinion we have modified. 

With all your present lights, with what you now know about the 
aponeurosis, have you any doubt that it did come from the abdominal 
wall? I have a doubt in so far as I am not absolutely certain. 

Have you any doubt about it? Yesi, I have. 

Where do you think it came from? That is the trouble. If I could 
suggest where it came from 

It might be useful? That is why I said I thought it probably came 
from the abdominal wall. 

Dr. ALEXANDER WTNTER BLYTH, examined by Mr. TOBIN I am a 
member of the Royal College of Physicians, a Fellow of the Institute of 
Chemistry, a Fellow of the Chemical Society, and I have various other 
qualifications. I am the author of a medical work entitled " Poisons : Their 
Effects and Detection." 

Dr. Willcox told us yesterday that going through the ordinary processes 
he at last extracted a gummy substance. Now, is a gummy substance char- 
acteristic of hyoscin and not of hyoscyamin, atropine, or any animal 
alkaloid? Certainly not. You can have a gummy substance in extracting 
various alkaloids. Often the slightest impurity, especially with regard to 
hyoscyamin, causes it not to crystallise. By the term " gummy substance " 
I presume is meant something that is not crystalline a sticky substance. 

It is said that atropine crystallises and hyoscyamin crystallises, but 
hyoscin does not. Do you agree with that or not? I do; that would be 
in a pure state. 

Now, as to applying Vitali's test the reaction of violet fading into a 
brownish colour. Is that reaction characteristic of the vegetable mydriatic 
alkaloids, and also of the animal mydriatic alkaloids or not? I know 
of my own knowledge that it is characteristic of the vegetable alkaloids ; 
but with regard to the animal alkaloids, I have no experience of a mydriatic 
alkaloid obtained from animal tissues, and whether those alkaloids that 
do dilate the pupil, which have been found, give that test or not, I do not 
know. In fact, most of the work done in that direction was done before 
1880, or about that time, when Vitali's test was published; therefore in 
1869, for instance, it could not have been applied; so we do not know; no 
one knows. 

Further, Dr. Willcox said that small round spheres were produced. 

M 141 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Dr. BIyth 

Are those round spheres characteristic of hyoscin alone, or are they also 
found with hyoscyamin and atropine? I have not been able to get them. I 
have attempted to get what Dr. Willcox has stated according to the 
depositions that have been forwarded to me, but I must confess that I have 
not been able to distinguish between the atropine, hyoscyamin, and hyoscin 
by hydrochloric acid, as Dr. Willcox has done. No one knows whether 
those round spheres might be produced at last in the case of animal 
alkaloids. 

Dr. Willcox told us that in the lungs, which were most decomposed, 
he found only a trace of any alkaloid. If this was an animal alkaloid in 
fact, would you expect that he should have found most of the animal 
alkaloid in the most decomposed part, the lungs? I should not have 
expected so, because animal alkaloids arise, it is well known, at a particular 
stage of putrefaction, and when that stage is passed any animal alkaloid 
that has been produced becomes more or less destroyed; so that in the 
same decomposing tissue at different times of its putrefaction you would 
never expect to find the same amount of putrefaction alkaloid. 

If you get more putrefaction, is there the greater probability of finding 
an animal alkaloid? There is not, because it has gone a stage beyond the 
time of production. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE 'First of all, it is produced by putrefac- 
tion; then putrefaction goes on and the traces disappear. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Mum I have never tested a mydriatic animal 
alkaloid. I have read in Dr. Luff's evidence that he has himself found 
a mydriatio animal alkaloid in putrefied meat and has tested it, and that 
it did not give the purple colour on Vitali's test. I dare say he is quite 
correct. I do not dispute for a moment that there may be many mydriatic 
alkaloids. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE This gentleman has said that he had no 
experience of animal mydriatic alkaloids. 

By Mr. Mm* You are speculating at large? I do not know about 
speculating. 

Do you know of any animal mydriatic alkaloid except mydalein? 
That particular one was investigated, but there are others that have not been 
thoroughly investigated. I know of none by specific name except under the 
name of mydriatio alkaloids. 

Is not that the only mydriatic animal alkaloid that you can give a 
name to? One was separated in 1869 by Sonnenschein, and he gave it no 
name, but it seems not to have agreed with mydalein. 

Can you give any name of any other animal mydriatio alkaloid but 
mydalein? No, I cannot, because they are unnamed. 

Have you any experience of them at all? Not practically. 

In your opinion, is it possible to make a mistake between animal 
mydriatic alkaloids and vegetable mydriatic alkaloids ? I think the evidence 
points that they are the same thing. 

But is it possible to make a mistake between the two? You would 

like me to answer yes or no, but that would not be fair. In my opinion, 

some of them are identical, and therefore it is possible to make a mistake 

between the two. Being referred to page 485 of my book " Poisons : Their 

142 



Evidence for Defence. 

Dr. Blyth 

Effects and Detection " (the last edition, 1895) " Definition of a ptomaine. 
That is an animal alkaloid. A ptomaine may be considered as a basic 
chemical substance derived from the action of bacteria on nitrogenous 
substances. If this definition is accepted, a ptomaine is not necessarily 
formed in the dead animal tissue; it may be produced by the living, and 
in all cases it is the product of bacterial life. A ptomaine is not necessarily 
poisonous ; many are known -which are, in moderate doses, quite innocuous. 
When Selmi's researches were first published there was some anxiety lest 
the existence of ptomaines would seriously interfere with the detection of 
poison generally, because some were said to be like strychnine, others like 
colchicine, and so forth. Further research has conclusively shown that at 
present no ptomaine is known which so closely resembles a vegetable poison 
as to be likely in skilled hands to cause confusion." I do not think that 
that is absolutely correct. I have altered my opinion since I wrote that 
book. I have not had an opportunity yet of publishing that altered opinion. 
I altered my opinion during this month on reading up the various papers 
foreign papers. 

For the purposes of this case? In connection with this case, of course, 
obviously. 

For the purposes of this case you have altered your opinion? I have, 
yes. I think there is strong evidence that there is in putrefying tissues a 
substance very much resembling the mydriatic alkaloids produced. I have 
read that Dr. Luff said, " I think it quite impossible to mistake animal for 
vegetable alkaloids if Vitali's test is applied." I disagree with that entirely, 
because some of the Italian chemists declare that they have got different 
reactions. I forget the names of those particular chemists; there is one 
Giotti. I have only seen extracts from their papers. . 

Dr. Willcox has said that he searched the original paper, and that 
statement is not to be found in it? Well, I cannot help that. I have not 
searched for it; I have not had time. I cannot refer to any book which 
says that animal alkaloids will give the purple colour under Vitali's test. 

[At this stage the Lord Chief Justice, the jury, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Pepper, 
Dr. Spilsbury, Dr. Turnbull, and Dr. Wall went into an adjoining Court 
for the purpose of an examination of the microscopic slides and the piece 
of skin and flesh.] 

On the public trial being resumed 

Mr. Mum My lord, I have an application to make to your lordship 
with regard to those pyjamas. No statement was made at all as to when 
the prisoner acquired them until after he went into the witness-box. It 
was impossible for us in examination-in-chief to deal with the question of 
the date on which he acquired them. I desire to call evidence upon that 
point. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I shall allow you to call evidence as to the 
date of sale. 

Mr. Mum And the date of manufacture, in order to identify them. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We will see about that; it may be fixed not 
before a certain date, but I should not allow you to call attention to the 
date of manufacture unless it bears directly on the question of sale. 

Mr. Mum It does, I think. Then, my lord, there is another point, 

143 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

with regard to the dates upon which the " Montrose" has been in London 
since the defendant has been in this country, to show that he had oppor- 
tunities of communicating with the quartermaster he has been speaking of. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE He has himself said that he knew the ship 
was here once. I think that is a little too remote. 

Mr. Mura If your lordship pleases. 

Mr. TOBIN As to the first application of my learned friend, the 
information that they now have was, I presume, in their possession before 
this trial began, and if notice of it had been given to us we, the defendant's 
advisers, might have made inquiry into it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is true, and I am quite sure that if 
it had been in their possession you would have had notice. In my judgment 
the point that is now raised as to the purchase of these pyjamas being 
made under circumstances which the prosecution say are impossible was 
not put to the witnesses for the Crown so as to direct your attention to it. 
I think the evidence is clearly admissible as to that part of it. I think it 
right to say, Mr. Tobin, because there is sometimes a misunderstanding 
about this, that the question of notice is never conclusive as to whether 
evidence is admissible. It is the practice of our law always to give the 
prisoner every notice that is possible, but in every case in which a point 
arises as to whether the evidence is material, it is for the judge to say 
whether or no it is admissible. It does not depend on notice being given. 
I am quite sure that, having regard to the practice of our law and the 
practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, had this been foreseen, 
notice would have been given. 

Mr. TOBIN I am obliged to your lordship. My point was rather this, 
that it ought not to be admitted at this stage when they could have given 
the evidence in chief. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE In my judgment the point made by Dr. 
Crippen with regard to this I will not say all through his evidence, but 
in part^of his evidence was not developed either by the cross-examination 
or in anything put at the Police Court or here. 

Mr. TOBIN It was not, because one did not know anything about it. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Do not think I am blaming you, but it is 
Dr. Crippen' s own evidence that makes this so material. 



Further Evidence for the Prosecution. 

WILLIAM JAMES CHILVERS, examined by Mr. Mum I live at 47 Guildford 
Park, Muswell Hill. I am buyer to Messrs. Jones Brothers, Holloway. 
I have seen the two pyjama suits and pair of trousers in this case. I 
recognise the material of which they are made. They were sold to my 
firm previous to December, 1908. I am afraid I cannot say how long 
before, but I should think it would be about a month or three weeks 
before December, 1908. They were sold by my firm between 28th 
December and during January, 1909. We keep sale duplicates. I have 
here the sale duplicate for 5th January, 1909. The goods mentioned in 
144 



Evidence for Defence. 

William J. Chllvers. 

that sale duplicate were delivered, but I am afraid I could not say whether 
they were sent by the cart or by special messenger. They were sent 
" Pay on delivery," and 17s. 9d. was paid to my firm in respect of that 
transaction on that day. 

By the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am able to say that the 17s. 9d. applies 
to the pyjamas. There are other two items paid for at the time, to the same 
address, 39 Hilldrop Crescent, 2 5s. 4d. and 4s. 

Examination continued Now, will you look at the pair of trousers, 
which I will call the odd pair of trousers. Is the pattern of those trousers 
different from that of the other two sets ? The pattern is different. 

Look at the pieces in the jar. Was what was in the jar sold by you 
as part of a pyjama suit? Yes. 

As part of what pyjama suit? This (pointing) is the trousers, aoi 
this (pointing) is the coat. 

The odd trousers were sold with some others, a jacket of which that 
is the material in the jar? Yes. 

It is a jacket from the same suit as the trousers? Yes. I have seen 
the tab on the part which is in the jar; it bears the words " Jones 
Brothers, Holloway, Limited." Jones Brothers have been a limited com- 
pany since 1906. 

Mr. TOBIN No questions. I do not call any other evidence. 



Closing Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. TOBIN addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said he 
did not propose to repeat at any length the arguments which he had used 
on the previous day. He adhered to every one of the arguments, and he 
was persuaded that the jury would not forget to consider every one of 
them when they came to reflect upon their verdict. He could not insist 
too much on the fact that in the administration of our criminal law the 
burden of proof rested on the prosecution, and if on a single material 
point there could be reasonable doubt it was not for him to appeal for 
mercy ; he had only to claim what was the right of the prisoner. If there 
could be any real doubt, he asked them, having heard the evidence, and 
the many mysterious things in this case when they called to mind the 
widely differing opinions of honest professional men on either side on 
points of surgery, on points of medicine, and on the properties of poisons 
whether they were able to say with the satisfied judgment and safe 
consciences which the law required, that they were prepared to send a 
fellow man to his death. Was it safe? If it was not safe on any material 
point, then the law said that the man had a right to his acquittal. It 
was better far that guilty men should escape than that a single one 
should be convicted when there was a real, substantial doubt on any 
material point. 

145 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mr. Tobln 

He proposed to deal very briefly with the evidence. Dr. Crippen had 
himself given evidence, though there had been no obligation upon him to 
go into the witness-box. He had said that he had made no inquiries as 
to the whereabouts of his wife between 1st February, the date of her 
disappearance, and 31st July, the date of his arrest. Dr. Crippen had 
been living with Le Neve, his mistress, and he did not want to make 
inquiries. He and his wife had been unhappy at home, and she had left 
him because of their constant quarrels. It was idle to suppose that he 
would be other than relieved at her departure from Hilldrop Crescent. One 
would have supposed that he did not care, or that he would prefer her to 
be away. He did not want her, having his mistress there, and why 
then should he make inquiries about her? His conduct in not making 
inquiries was absolutely consistent with the case that he had presented, 
viz., relief at the departure of the wife and contentment at having his 
mistress at Hilldrop Crescent. 

The next point was that Dr. Crippen had said in reply to Mr. Muir, 
" I know no one who has seen her alive since 1st February, and I know 
DO one who has received a letter from her since that date." The law 
did not cast on Dr. Crippen the burden of finding out where his wife 
might be, whether she was alive or not, whether she was in some foreign 
country, or whether she had joined some man or not. Dr. Crippen had 
said that on 2nd February and this was an important point Le Neve 
had slept with him at Hilldrop Crescent. Was it conceivable that a few 
hours before Le Neve slept in that house Dr. Crippen could have taken 
his wife's life, buried the flesh and skin in a hole in the cellar floor, and 
done away with the head, the hands, feet, and bones? He had been at 
his work all day, and what time had he had in which to do all that? 
There had only been the night hours of 1st February to afford him the 
time and opportunity to mutilate the remains, bury the flesh in the cellar, 
and get rid of all the limbs and bones before Le Neve arrived. They 
could not imagine that on the night of 2nd February Le Neve could 
have been taken to sleep at that house if Dr. Crippen knew that there was 
a trace of his wife, when, if she saw any spot of blood or trace of the 
murder, she might have fled from the house in terror and gone straight 
to the police. It was inconceivable that he could have taken her there 
within a few hours of committing the murder, knowing the risk he ran 
if Le Neve should detect it. 

In regard to the campaign of lies on which he had embarked, Dr. 
Crippen, in reply to Mr. Muir, had said that at the time he told those 
lies and wrote those false letters he did not know for certain whether his 
wife might not be writing to her friends and relations. Surely this 
explanation was simple if his tale was true. If she had gone away, and if 
she had appeared again, or had been writing to her friends, those friends 
would have been glad indeed to find that Dr. Crippen 's story of her 
illness and her death was quite untrue, and further, they would have 
thought none the worse of Dr. Crippen for having told those lies in order 
to try and cover up his wife's disappearance and his wife's shame. There 
146 




[Photo, hi/ 

A. A. Tobin, K.C., leading Counsel for the Defence. 



Closing Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobln 

was nothing, surely, in that point inconsistent with the defence set up by 
Dr. Crippen. 

Dr. Crippen had been pressed that morning as to the reason for his 
flight, and pressed further, though he could hardly appreciate why, as 
to the reason why he had gone in disguise and under a false name. That, 
however, carried the case no further; it had been part of his scheme of 
flight. They had to consider what was the reason for his flight, or his 
folly, if they liked. A man had done the same thing before when he 
had heard of a charge in connection with the disappearance of his wife. 
They had to realise the time of his flight, and what had just been said 
by Inspector Dew. They had to remember the lies Dr. Crippen had told, 
and that he had admitted that they were lies. They must not forget what 
Inspector Dew had said to him, " I am not satisfied about your wife," 
and, " There will be serious trouble in store for you unless you find your 
wife." A man who had lost sight of his wife for all those months, who 
had no notion where she was, and who remembered that he had told 
lie after lie as to the reason for her disappearance, might be thoroughly 
alarmed when an officer of the law appeared and said there would be 
serious trouble in store for him about this disappearance. Dr. Crippen 
realised the mass of prejudice he had raised against himself by the lies 
he had told, and was flight, although an act of folly, a clear proof of 
guilt? 

The next point in the cross-examination had been as to the story of 
the card on the " Montrose." " Is the quartermaster here? " Mr. Muir 
had asked. No, he was not. Mr. Muir was entitled to make all he 
could of that, but the jury were bound to look on that point as men of 
the world. Was it likely that the quartermaster would be a very willing 
man to come at all or to confess to such a tale, when, if he did, the very 
act of his corroborating that story would go to show that he was a party 
to impeding the officers of the law? 

The next point had been that Dr. Crippen had not given evidence 
before the magistrate or the coroner. He was then in the hands of his 
solicitor, Mr. Newton, under whose advice he acted. It was quite clear 
that the magistrate was bound on the evidence of the Crown witnesses to 
send the case for trial. It was a difficult, complicated case, requiring a 
good deal of research into matters connected with medicine, anatomy, 
and poison, apart from all the difficult questions of general fact outside 
of those technicalities. In his experience it would have been most 
unusual and most unwise had Mr. Newton put Dr. Crippen in the witness- 
box before the magistrate, knowing that whatever evidence he gave the 
magistrate would send the case for trial. It would have been a most 
unwise and most dangerous thing in a case of this kind. Further, it would 
have been absolutely idle for Dr. Crippen to have given evidence before 
the coroner when he had already been committed for trial by the magis- 
trate before the inquest closed. That fully accounted for his not having 
gone into the box before. 

He would make no more comments on Dr. Crippen's evidence, but 
would pass on to say that the jury must be satisfied beyond any reasonable 

147 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mr. Tobin 

doubt. Suspicion was not enough. It was not enough to say " 1 suspect 
strongly." They must be satisfied that the flesh was the flesh of a 
woman, and next, they must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt 
that it was the flesh of Belle Elmore. He reminded them that the law 
did not demand that a prisoner, before he was entitled to his acquittal, 
should show that the remains were those of a man or whose they were 
least of all that he should prove to them where Belle Elmore was. The 
law presumed every man in the land to be innocent until the Crown had 
forged every single link in the chain against him. There was too much 
doubt on those points whether it was the flesh of a woman, and, if so, 
whether it was the flesh of Belle Elmore; there was too much doubt 
for them to find the verdict to which the law attached the penalty of 
death. They would pause before they made up their minds on those two 
points. 

Strange things were recorded in our legal history where a man had 
been convicted of murder, where he had been hanged, and where, after- 
wardsi, the supposed victim had appeared alive again. These things were 
recorded as having happened in spite of all of the fair and able administra- 
tors of justice, and they must be careful that such a thing should not 
happen again. That the jury would approach their verdict with the 
fairest minds and the closest recollection of all he had urged he knew 
perfectly well. This was a case which they would all remember to their 
dying day, and if in the course of time not for the first time in history 
Belle Elmore should in very truth appear again, what then? This 
was the first time that any one in the land had heard both sides of the 
case. It was the first time it had been argued on his side at all, and 
theirs was the duty to say whether they ought not in justice to surmount 
those mountains of prejudice, which, by his lies and by his flight, Crippen 
had reared against himself. It was for them now to say whether they 
could pierce the veil of suspicion which his folly in so lying and the folly 
of his flight had created against him. Hisi disappearance, his lies, his 
flight were no proof whatever that he committed murder. There were 
some things needed in this case. There was the question of motive. 
Murders had sometimes, he supposed, been committed without any motive, 
or, at any rate, people had been convicted where no motive had been 
proved, but in all cases of murder, where there was such a grave conflict 
as there was here, one looked to see whether or not there was any 
adequate motive for such a crime. There was the money motive 
wholly insufficient. The prisoner could not touch the money until some 
eleven months after hisi wife had disappeared. The motive that he 
(counsel) suggested himself was that he might have wanted to marry 
Le Neve 2 but that had gone by the board because he never married her. 
There was another thing which was admittedly needed, and that was a 
dexterous hand, well versed in anatomical operations. So far from being 
dexterous in anatomy, he was, compared with the skill required by an 
anatomical surgeon, a very commonplace manager for Munyons' remedies. 
Something else was needed. There was needed the fiend incarnate to do 
a deed like that; but the prisoner's reputation was that of a kind-hearted, 
good-hearted, amiable man. Were they to be told that during the doctor's 

148 



Closing Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobin 

close intimacy with his friends in London, and with his business people 
in London, they would never have detected any trait such as cruelty or 
something of that kind in his nature? The characteristics of the man 
who would do a deed like thisi were absolutely absent. 

They must have proof positive that those remains had been buried 
since half-past one on the morning 1 of 1st February of this year. In a 
ca.se of life and death could they say that they were satisfied beyond all 
doubt that that flesh and those remains in the cellar were buried there 
since that time? He reminded them that Dr. Marshall had said that 
some bodies remained in an excellent state of preservation for some years 
if buried in lime and in soil of a light clay, which practically excluded all 
air. Those were the conditions obtaining in that case. Those remains, 
whosesoever they were and whoever had buried them, had been buried in 
clay which practically excluded all air, and there was lime in the hole as 
well. Dr. Marshall had said that he had known bodies, buried under such 
conditions remain in an excellent state of preservation for some years. 
Were they then able to say upon their oaths and in their consciences, 
and to say safely, that they were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt 
that the remains were buried some five and a half months only before 
they were discovered by Inspector Dew? 

There wa,s another thing lacking in that case, and that was a 
positive proof that the remains were those of a woman at all. Witnesses 
for the Crown frankly admitted that the only way to tell with certainty 
whether the remains were those of a man or a woman was. on anatomical 
grounds. Mr. Pepper agreed, however, that these grounds were wholly 
wanting in that case. Even if they were able to say with a clear conscience 
that they were convinced, in spite of the absence of anatomical grounds, 
that the remains were those of a woman, they had to go a step further 
and to be persuaded in their own minds, that the remains were those of 
Belle Elmore. Mrs. Martinetti, a witness for the Crown, had said that 
she saw on Mrs. Crippen's body the navel just above that scar, but on 
the piece of flesh before them there was no navel above the scar in the 
way described by Mrs. Martinetti. That consideration alone must make 
them pause, and pause long, ere they could give a verdict against the 
prisoner at the bar. In view of the evidence given by doctors of high 
position on either side, could they as. laymen say with certainty that they 
were persuaded beyond all reasonable doxibt that that mark was the scar 
of an operation? The Crown admitted that the mark on one side was 
caused by a folding. Could not the other mark have been caused in the 
same way? The conflict went much further, because Dr. Turnbull, an 
expert in the use of the microscope, had told them that he could detect 
structures which could not have been there if that were in truth a scar. 
When men of high position and unimpeached honesty disagreed upon a 
point like that, how could they in a matter of life and death say whether 
they were certain that there were sebaceoiis glands and hair follicles there? 

The question of poison had also to be proved beyond the shadow of 
a doubt. It was unfortunate that before Dr. Willcox tested for hyoscin, 
and before he formed the opinion that he had found hyoscin, he had 
heard that Dr. Crippen had bought hyoscin on 19th January of this 
year. He did not say more than that. The point wasi whether the 

149 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Tobln 



gummy substance which Dr. Willcox found was a vegetable alkaloid 
obtained from a plant or an animal alkaloid produced by the natural 
procesa of putrefaction. Had they reached the limits of their scientific 
knowledge so that they were able in a matter of life and death to say that 
that substance might not have been the result of some animal alkaloid 
produced after death by a natural process of putrefaction? Were they 
sure that scientific men had got to the bottom of things, or did they not 
think that as the years rolled on they would acquire new knowledge? 
Only eight years ago it was thought that the chemical formulae of those 
three alkaloids atropine, hyoscyamin, and hyoscin were identical. It 
was now proved that they were not, and who knew whither the researches 
of their great scientists might not lead on that point? Were they 
satisfied beyond all doubt that science had reached the limit? 

Leaving these technicalities, there was one factor in the case that 
dominated the whole, and that was the fact that Crippen went daily to 
work, constantly saw his friends, took Le Neve at once, the very day after 
the disappearance of his wife, to live in this house, and yet none of his 
friends, business or social, saw any strange look in the man, any sign of 
fright or agitation. Was it conceivable that if during the night of 31st 
January he had been engaged in that gruesome task of cutting up the 
body, severing the limbs, burying the remains, carrying parts away 
piecemeal from the house and getting rid of stains of blood was it con- 
ceivable that he could have done all that in a short time? Was it 
conceivable that if a murderer had done these things he would have gone 
next morning to his; work without a trace of terror or a strange look in 
his eyes? It was beyond the powers of belief; and that element in the 
case the jury would not allow themselves, he knew, for one moment to 
overlook when they were trying to solve all the doubtful matters in this 
case. 

Gentlemen, the materials are before you now. My lord holds the 
scales of justice even. It is for you to say which way those scales shall 
come down. My only anxiety is this lest I, by any want of vigilance or 
care in this case, by any omission on my part, have done anything that 
might imperil this man's life. But this I do want to say. I want to 
acknowledge, and I should be ungenerous if I did not, the loyal help given 
to me and the wise suggestions made to me not only in Court, but for 
long hours out of Court, by my two colleagues with me in this case, Mr. 
Huntly Jenkins and Mr. Roome, and all those who collected the material 
to enable me to present the case for the prisoner. I do not plead for 
mercy. Not at all. I do not plead for mercy. There is only one 
anxiety which oppresses me, and that anxiety is that you should have 
the will power, because you need it that is no slight on you, gentlemen 
you need all the will power a man could have to enable you to expel the 
poison or prejudice which must have been instilled into your minds by 
reason of his lies, by reason of his folly, and beyond that by reason of 
so much that has appeared in the columns of the papers. You need 
the will power to expel all that prejudice. All I plead for is that you 
should give, as you mean to give, the verdict with minds unclouded by 
any preconceived prejudices. What I do demand, and what I have a 
150 



Closing Speech for the Defence. 

Mr. Tobin 

right to demand, is that you should never forget that greatest principle 
of all in English justice that great principle of the benefit of the doubt. 
That is not a principle to be ignored, you know. That is a principle 
to be jealously guarded and to be sacredly preserved by every juror, 
whatever the case may be. Each of you, let me remind you, is separately 
responsible for the verdict which you jointly give. Each of you individu- 
ally. Not one of you must yield his opinion to that of the others 
unless his reason and his conscience dictate to him that he should so 
yield. Not one of you can shelve his responsibility. Each of you is 
responsible for his verdict to his conscience and his God. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I find that that text-book of Hempel & 
Arndt's is obtainable, Mr. Tobin. I have directed it to be sent for, and 
it shall be placed at your disposal to-morrow morning. 

The Court adjourned. 



Fifth Day Saturday, 22nd October, 1910. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Muir, I have received an enormous 
number of communications, some of which are entitled, I think, to some 
respect. One has reference to an answer to a question put by one of the 
jury yesterday, and I think it is fair to put Dr. Crippen in the box again, 
and ask him another question about it. First of all, I should like to 
know if Hempel & Arndt's book is forthcoming? 

Mr. Mum My lord, it is not. An officer was engaged up to eight 
o'clock last night trying to get it, without success. 

HAWLET HARVEY CRIPPEN (recalled), examined by the LORD CHIEF 
JUSTICE I did not mention Hempel & Arndt's book to my advisers ; I never 
mentioned that book until here in Court yesterday. When I said in my 
evidence in chief that I had known hyoscin administered at the Bethlem 
Lunatic Asylum, I meant the Bethlem Royal Hospital, where I studied 
for three months. In the Royal Bethlem Hospital and in my own 
practice, in cases of insanity in which hyoscin is administered it is always 
given by hypodermic injection. It may be given in cases of nervous 
debility in infinitesimal doses by the mouth. I treated most of my 
patients by correspondence; I seldom saw a patient. My principal 
practice was with the eye, throat, nose, and ear, but I also had nervous 
cases. I have never had any cases of paralysis agitans. I have had cases 
of locomotor ataxy. I had a case of violent mania a long time ago in 
America. I had a case of locomotor ataxy in January of this year. With 
regard to the Mr. MacSweeny, whom I mentioned yesterday, I never saw 
him. 

He says in his letter that he has received your " Home Remedy 

151 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Hawley Harvey Crippen 

Book." Did you publish a "Home Remedy Book"? He refers to 
Munyons'. 

Did you know what he was suffering from? Yes, he was suffering 
from nervous debility. His letters are not all there. 

Do you know one way or the other of your own practice whether in 
the cases of the diseases I have mentioned paralysis agitans, locomotor 
ataxy, violent mania, cerebral excitement, or epilepsy hyoscin is pre- 
scribed? In cases where there is cerebral excitement it is administered 
by hypodermic injection, but in the class of cases that I dealt with, that 
is nervous debility or nervous irritation, it is given in very minute doses, 
infinitesimal doses, for relieving the irritable condition of the nerves. 

And then hypodermically ? No, by the mouth. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (to the jury) I think, gentlemen, that this 
rather shows that this question of hypodermically or by the mouth does 
not become so important after all. 

(The prisoner then returned to the dock.) 

Mr. TOBIN I do not know whether your lordship will think it 
proper to look at a book I have here, which has only this moment been 
handed to me. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Certainly, I will look at it. (A book 
handed to his lordship.) This is not the book mentioned by the prisoner 
yesterday ? 

Mr. TOBIN No, my lord. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (after reading the book) This book certainly 
does seem to show that in some cases of hydrophobia with maniacal 
fexcitement, acute pneumonia with wild delirium, cardiac disease with 
wandering delirium, and attempts to get out of bed, chronic Bright' s 
disease with refusal to take food, and acute double pneumonia with delirium 
100th of a grain of hyoscin is given subcutaneously that is hypodermic- 
ally. On another page it is said that the preparation of hyoscin which, 
I presume, is the same may be given subcutaneously or by the mouth. 
The writer says that his own experience is decidedly in favour of adminis- 
tration under the skin, which, besides being more practicable, and perhaps 
the only method with delirious patients, is the more effective. This 
seems to establish that these minute doses: of hyoscin are known to 
medical men to be given in these diseases either by the mouth or under 
the skin. You can look at the book, Mr. Muir. It is a minor incident 
in the case, although it has been referred to by Mr. Tobin quite rightly. 
It only shows that the particular question that was asked by the jury was 
answered too positively by Dr. Willcox. 

Mr. MUIR Dr. Willcox was only talking of his experience. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is quite plain, but it is a very minor 
point. Will you give me the title of the book? 

^ Mr. TOBIN It is Braithwaite's " Retrospect of Medicine." The 
article I referred your lordship to is; written by Dr. Mitchell Bruce, con- 
sulting physician to the Charing Cross Hospital. 
152 






Closing Speech for the Crown. 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 

Mr. MUIR addressed the jury for the Crown. He said that he should 
not have thought it necessary for any one who had observed the demeanour 
of the jury during the progress of the trial to address to them any words 
seeking to enforce upon their minds the gravity of the task which they 
had undertaken; but his learned friend had thought it right to drag out 
of the limbo in which it had rested for many years an old forensic bogey in 
order to suggest to their minds that ( they ought to> be cautious and certain 
before, in a case involving life and death, they found a verdict of " guilty." 
There were cases in the books, said his learned friend, which showed that 
men had been tried for murder, convicted, and hanged, and then their 
supposed victims had turned up alive. There were such cases in books. Sir 
Matthew Hale, who died in 1676, mentioned two such cases, which were old 
cases in his time. The world had contracted since then for the purpose of 
finding absent persons. Steamships, railway trains, electric telegraphs, 
and newspapers had made a vast difference to the administration of justice 
since Sir Matthew Kale's time. But it was thought necessary to flutter 
before their eyes that ancient bogey, as if they were not grown men, and 
as if they would be afraid to go home in the dark because, according to 
their consciences, they had done their duty. No caution was necessary for 
the jury to be as careful as men could be, and as certain as in the affairs 
of this life they could be; and he should have thought an attempt to 
frighten them, as if they were little children in the nursery, was out of 
place. They would do their duty according to the ancient custom of the law 
of this country, which resolved all doubtful questions in favour of the prisoner 
upon his trial. If doubt there were, he was entitled to be acquitted. There 
was not any question of benefit at all; the law was that the Crown must 
prove it beyond doubt. If they did not prove it beyond doubt, they had 
failed to prove the case at all. That was the law that they were called upon 
to administer; and who was going to suggest that they were going to find 
a verdict of " guilty " in this case if, in their consciences and minds, they 
thought the evidence was not sufficient ? 

One other topic his learned friend dwelt upon, which neither in opening 
the case nor now did he deem worth wasting their time to say a word upon. 
The suggestion that their minds would be prejudiced by anything they had 
heard outside the jury box was a suggestion he would not insult their 
intelligence by making ; and he only mentioned it now because his learned 
friend said that the newspapers, in publishing reports of this case, had 
published one side only. Why had they published one side only? Because 
the prisoner chose to keep his mouth closed ; because he did not choose to 
go before the coroner ; because he did not choose to go into the witness-box 
before the magistrate; because he chose to reserve those precious medical 
witnesses until this trial those witnesses who, if they had gone into the 
witness-box at the Police Court, would have sworn something totally 
different from what they swore in the witness-box here. That being the 

153 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mr. Hulr 

fact, his learned friend had thought it right to complain, on behalf of 
the prisoner, that the newspapers had only published one side of the case. 
They were asked throughout the cross-examination of witness after 
witness, throughout the two speeches of his learned friend, to discount or 
to discard plain facts, because the prisoner was too kind-hearted a man 
to have done the deed of which he stood accused. Let them examine the 
foundation for that $heory. The prisoner had admitted that over a long 
series of months he led a life of studied hypocrisy, utterly regardless of the 
pain which the lies which he was telling and was acting would inflict upon 
friend or sister of his wife. Letters full of grief of a bereaved husband were 
written to Mrs. Martinetti, to Dr. Burroughs to be seen by Dr. Burroughs's 
wife, to Mrs. Mills, the half-sister of Cora Crippen. There was that letter 
of his carrying the sobs of the bereaved husband across the ocean to 
harrow the feelings of his wife's relations. He put on mourning, wrote on 
black-edged paper, mocked the grief of his wife's dearest friends, who 
thought they were sympathising with him, when they wished to lay a last 
tribute of love upon the far-off grave of their dead friend. He said, " A 
wreath is no use ; she is not being buried, she is being cremated ; her ashes 
will soon be here" and then with his tongue in his cheek "you may 
have your little ceremony then." Ashes to be fetched across the sea ! They 
were asked to say then that he was too kind-hearted to have done this deed. 
The man who could mock the mourners had not sufficient control over his 
nerve, if he had done this thing, to conceal the fact that he had done it, 
in office hours? Let the jury act on the plain facts; let them deal with the 
man as they saw him in the evidence of Mrs. Martinetti and in that of Mrs. 
Smythson, in the letter he wrote to Mrs. Mills. If they were going to 
acquit him, would it be upon the ground that he was too kind-hearted? 
For days sitting in that dock they had had opportunities of judging what 
manner of man he was; for hours standing in that witness-box, they were 
the judges of whether the prisoner had the nerve to conceal his feelings. 
What were they to say of all that hypocrisy and of all those lies? They 
were told to cover up a scandal. For whose sake ? For the sake of the wife 
who had betrayed him, who put on a fair face to the world and made her 
most intimate friends believe she was a bright, happy-natured woman, but 
to him indifferent, bad-tempered, extravagant, a person having no affection 
towards him at all. A living lie he would have them believe his wife was ; 
deserted him for another man ; and it was to cover up the scandal attaching 
to her name when she deserted him without cause that he told all those lies 
and acted all that hypocrisy. He believed she was unfaithful to him ; that 
her love was fixed on Bruce Miller; she living in the same house with this 
man, Bruce Miller, in America. They had never cast eyes on each other 
for eix years; but she was the unfaithful, bad-tempered wife, and he the 
kind-hearted, considerate husband ! They had seen Bruce Miller. It was 
an odd jury of twelve men that, whatever topic was being discussed before 
them, did not contain one or more who thoroughly understood it. There 
was a freedom of manner between actors and actresses on the music hall 
stage which did not exist in their conventional life. It was suggested that 
she had been unfaithful with Bruce Miller. Bruce Miller had travelled 
across the ocean to contradict it. If he was a liar he would not have 
154 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 



Mr. Muip 



admitted what he did admit the sending of the letters " with love and 
kisses to Brown Eyes." That would have meant so much if a letter had been 
sent to a wife in their class of life; and it might mean so little between 
persons on the music hall stage. Was it likely that he would have admitted 
that admitted the kisses if he was a liar? And the man who brought 
those accusations against his wife was the man who was himself carrying 
on an intrigue with Ethel Le Neve, extending over three years, and who said 
in the witness-box that he believed his wife knew nothing about it. 

It was said that there was no adequate motive shown for the murder. 
When was an adequate motive shown for any murder? His learned friend 
had put upon the case for the Crown, which he represented, the suggestion 
that the only motives put forward by them were the motive to get the 600 
in the bank and the motive to marry Ethel Le Neve. Neither of those 
motives was suggested by him in his opening as the immediate cause of the 
murder. The motive that was suggested was: the establishment of closer 
relations with Ethel Le Neve; to substitute for those clandestine meetings 
in the daytime a permanent cohabitation of the two. What did he care 
whether he married Ethel Le Neve? What was the necessity of it? The 
man who within a fortnight of the announcement of his wife's death pre- 
tended to his partner that he had married another woman was no stickler 
for ceremony. But was the motive the establishment of closer relations 
with Ethel Le Neve? On 1st February, according to him, his wife was alive 
and well between two and three in the morning. According to him, on 
the night of 2nd February he took Ethel Le Neve to sleep at 39 Hilldrop 
Crescent. That was his story. The date did not agree with Mrs. Jackson's; 
but let that pass. No motive? Love if they dignified it by that name; 
lust if they gave it its true appellation one of the most powerful motives 
actuating the thoughts of men. Money to gratify that lust. Immediately 
on 2nd February the wife's jewels were pawned, 80 was raised; and it 
was suggested that there was no motive ! A man who did that was a man 
absolutely callous to the feelings of others, as he suggested he had proved 
by hjs own admissions and by his conduct to his wife's friends. There was 
no sign of alarm it was suggested by his learned friend, and he made 
the best suggestions that were possible on the facts or of agitation. It 
was true he showed none. Some men had marvellous control over their 
inner feelings. Some men could look almost happy, certainly at their ease, 
in circumstances which would absolutely break down the average man ; and 
they had had opportunities of judging to which of those two classes the 
prisoner belonged. There was no sign of alarm ; he was going about his 
business in the ordinary way, with a smiling face, a calm manner, the 
index, it was suggested, of a clear conscience. He had nothing to fear, 
because he had done nothing wrong ; therefore a calm, ordinary demeanour. 
Had he something to fear when Inspector Dew arrested him on the river 
St. Lawrence? Had he something to fear when he travelled across the 
Atlantic with the inspector? He was calm and cheerful from the day of 
hia arrest till yesterday. But it was said that because he appeared to be 
calm and cheerful he could not have done this. 

It was beyond the limits of human belief, it was said, that, if the 
prisoner murdered his wife on 1st February, as was suggested, before he 

155 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Huir 



left for business on that day if he went to business on that day he could 
have invited Ethel Le Neve to sleep with him at Hilldrop Crescent on the 
2nd. In the first place, the statement that Ethel Le Neve slept the night 
ot 2nd February at Hilldrop Crescent rested entirely upon the prisoner's 
word. He never said so before yesterday in cross-examination in the 
witness-box. His recollection was that his learned friend Mr. Tobin did 
not open that as a fact, though he saw the power of it as an argument when 
he came to sum up the case. It rested on the uncorroborated statement of 
Crippen in the witness-box. It was for the jury to say what weight, if any, 
they attached to any statement of Crippen's uncorroborated. But, if it 
was true, there was plenty of time from the morning of 1st February to the 
night of 2nd February to have got rid of the remains of his wife. Mrs. 
Jackson said that it was in the month of February that Ethel Le Neve first 
stayed away from her lodgings one night. The effect of her evidence, 
though she spoke of no date, was that it was* later in the month of February 
than the 2nd. 

He came to matters which were still more important the question of 
the identity of those remains. It was said by his learned friend that the 
Crown must establish two things first, that the remains were those of a 
woman; and, secondly, that they were the remains of Belle Elmo re. With 
respect to his learned friend, there was some confusion of thought there. 
The one was a step in the proof of the other. The Crown must prove to 
the satisfaction of the jury that those were the remains of Belle Elmore, or 
it must fail. But that did not mean, as his learned friend had suggested 
to the jury, that they must be satisfied that somebody looking at those 
remains was able to say, " I recognise them with my eyesight as the 
remains of Belle Elmore." If that were a necessity of either fact or law, 
many of the worst crimes would go unpunished. They could conceive a 
case in which a man reduced the remains of his victim to a few charred 
bones which no human being could recognise, and still conceive that the 
evidence might be overwhelming that the bones were those of the missing 
victim. And so here the facts which went to establish that those human 
remains were the remains of Belle Elmore were the whole facts of the case, 
from the fact of the date of 1st February at half-past one in the morning, 
when the prisoner and she were left alone in their house, through all the 
months down to 13th July, when those human remains were found buried 
in the prisoner's cellar mixed up with the prisoner's pyjama jacket. 

Those were the facts upon which the Crown asked the jury, exercising 
all the caution which it was their duty to exercise, to say that the facts 
proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and that those remains were the 
remains of Belle Elmore. There were two ways of approaching the ques- 
tion of identity. " Find something which shows me that the remains here 
are the remains of Belle Elmore," that was one way. The other way was, 
" See if there is not something in those remains which shows that they are 
not the remains of Belle Elmore." His learned friend, who needed to be 
under no misgivings that any lack of vigilance or skill on his part had 
deprived his client of any assistance that legal aid could give him, did not 
point to any single item in all the items in that grave for the purpose of 
saying, " There is a thing which shows that those remains cannot be the 
156 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 



Mr. Muir 



remains of Belle Elmore." Not one! A man's handkerchief, and a man 
put them there. A man's pyjama. jacket; yes, and the prisoner's pyjama 
jacket. Take away those items suggestive of a man. No question was put 
to any medical man for the Crown or for the defence, " Do you find upon 
those remains any indication at all of the male sex? " Therefore the only 
things found in that grave suggestive of a man were suggestive of the man 
who put the remains into it. 

He desired to say again that no medical man could say with certainty 
on anatomical grounds that those remains were the remains of a woman. 
Anatomical grounds were the only grounds on which as medical men they 
would be justified in forming any opinion at all. There was failure 
of affirmative proof on that point, but what followed? Hinde's curlers 
with a woman's hair mixed up with those remains. How did they get 
there unless they came from a body from which those remains were all 
that were left? The colour of the hair was dark brown naturally, 
bleached to a lighter colour. Belle Elmore had dark brown hair bleached 
to a lighter shade. It was true that other women had dark brown hair 
bleached to a lighter colour, but there was no suggestion that any woman 
with hair of that sort was missing in London within the limits of the time 
which were involved in that case. There was the undergarment such as 
Belle Elmore wore. Mrs. Harrison, one of her oldest friends in this 
country, who had known her for twelve or thirteen years, and had often 
seen her dressing, spoke of the hair as being like the hair of Belle Elmore, 
as she saw it in the morning before Belle Elmore dressed. Mrs. Harrison 
spoke of the undergarments as being such as Belle Elmore wore, and 
asked in cross-examination, " And such as thousands of other women 
wore? " she answered, " Yes, but Belle always wore them." The flesh 
which had been produced before them he observed how bravely they did 
their duty in regard to that ghastly relic that piece of flesh, perhaps the 
most important, certainly one of the most important things, was it a 
piece of the body of Belle Elmore? It was said by the witnesses for the 
Crown to be a piece of the lower abdominal wall, and bearing an old scar; 
and Belle Elmore had been operated upon in that region in the year 
1892 or 1893. 

It was disputed by his learned friend in opening that this was part 
of the abdominal wall at all, and he suggested to the jury that his medical 
evidence would leave their minds in such doubt on the point that they 
would be bound to acquit his client. The evidence upon this branch of 
the case could be summarised in a few sentences. Mr. Pepper, a surgeon 
of the greatest experience, who had himself performed hundreds of opera- 
tions, had seen a healed scar caused by his own operation which was just 
such a scar as this. Dr. Willcox, a surgeon of great experience, and Dr. 
Marshall, the police surgeon, all saw the thing when it was fresh; both 
agreed that it was a scar. On the other hand, there was the evidence 
of Dr. Turnbull and Dr. Wall, who at first said that the piece of flesh 
did not come from the abdominal wall at all, but from the buttocks, and 
who now had been obliged to admit in the witness-box that they were 
absolutely mistaken. Those were the two men who did not scruple to 

N 157 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Mr. Hulr 

give a report, after a twenty minutes' examination of a piece of the human 
body, to the effect that three distinguished colleagues had been talking 
nonsense in the witness-box on oath. Now, they had recantations in 
the witness-box, recantations and confessions of incapacity or the grossest 
carelessness and rashness. And those two men who had so recanted and 
so confessed were the two men on whose evidence the jury were asked to 
say that Mr. Pepper, with his vast experience, and Dr. Willcox, acting 
for the Home Office, who had probably conducted more inquiries than 
any other living man except perhaps Dr. Luff, were absolutely mistaken. 
All Dr. Turnbull could do in answer to him was to say that a person 
unaccustomed to the use of the microscope might make a mistake. Did 
he mean to suggest in that innuendo that Dr. Spilsbury was unaccustomed 
to the use of the microscope? Was that the suggestion? He hoped not. 

The mistakes Dr. Turnbull made were these. He was wrong as to 
the part of the body from which this flesh came. He was wrong as to 
its not having the characteristic aponeurosis upon the abdominal wall. 
He was wrong as to the absence of the tendon. And he was wrong as to 
the absence of the transverse muscles. All those mistakes he had to 
confess in the witness-box. It was for the jury to judge between the 
evidence for the Crown and for the defence which they considered most 
worthy of belief. And as to Dr. Wall, he never heard anything more 
extraordinary in his life. Being asked his reasons for thinking it was 
not a scar he said, " If it were a scar I should expect to find something 
different from what I did find." Nothing more than that to put against 
the reasoned evidence of Mr. Pepper, Dr. Willcox, and Dr. Spilsbury. 
Was that a piece of the lower abdominal wall of a human being? The 
answer, he submitted, must be yes. Had it got a scar on it? Was it part 
of the body of a woman? The evidence of Mr. Pepper was emphatic. Then 
if a woman, if a scar, if from the lower part of the abdomen, from whose 
body did it come? His submission was that there was only one answer 
possible. It came from the body of a woman who was seen alive in the 
house at half -past one in the morning of 1st February, whose remains were 
dug up from the cellar on 13th July, and who between those two dates waa 
never seen alive or heard from. 

The suggestion of his learned friend in opening the case was why 
should the prisoner, during his four and a half years' tenancy, have 
suspected there were remains there at all when Inspector Dew, digging 
with the heel of his boot, could not tell that the floor had been disturbed 
for years and years? But they now knew that within a much shorter 
period than that those remains were buried. They were buried with the 
pyjama jacket, having upon it the name of Jones Brothers, Holloway, 
Limited, a company which was not formed until 1906, after Crippen became 
tenant of the house. The jacket was bought by Jones Brothers in Novem- 
ber or December, 1908, sold by them between December and January, 
1908-9, and money collected for it from the address, 39 Hilldrop Crescent. 
Who in that period could have buried it in tihat house? Who was missing 
who could be buried in it? Nobody but Belle Elmore. 

It was said the prisoner had not the opportunity or the skill necessary 
158 



Closing Speech for the Crown, 



Mr. Mulr 



for the burial and the mutilation of those remains. On that point counsel 
referred to the evidence of the diploma, signed by the professor of anatomy 
or surgery of the prisoner's medical school in the United States, the 
prisoner's own statement that before he took his degree he attended hos- 
pitals in London for the purpose of witnessing operations, and the endorse- 
ment upon his diploma showing that he practised in America in different 
States under the authority of that diploma, together with the statement 
of Mr. Pepper, that once having learned how this thing was done it would 
not matter whether one had practised it for ten years or whether he had not. 
This was no delicate dissection which required constant skill and practice 
in order to do it with accuracy ; but it did require some medical knowledge 
and some degree of dexterity such as would be gained in going through the 
medical school. On the other hand they had the evidence of the prisoner 
and nothing else. Somebody in Crippen's house, while Crippen was 
tenant, carved up the body which he suggested was proved to be the body 
of Cora Crippen. Who could do this thing in Crippen's house since 
November, 1908, but the man who was now upon his trial? 

What became of Belle Elmore? Did she ever leave that house alive 
after the Martinettis left at half -past one in the morning of 1st February? 
No one ever saw her alive, ever 1 had a letter from her. Her property 
was left behind; she had no money, so far as could be found. Before 
the flight it was said, quite truly upon the prisoner's own version of the 
matter, why should he inquire where she was gone? There was some- 
thing to be said for the proposition, why should he inquire after his arrest? 
The most obvious inquiries neglected the tradesmen who would come to 
the door, the neighbours who would see her, or the cabman who would take 
her luggage. Here was a man defended by a London solicitor whose 
defence was that his wife was alive, and, as far as the defendant knew, 
not a tradesman, cabman, or steamship owner questioned to find what had 
become of her. Was that fact explicable upon any hypothesis except one, 
that Crippen knew her remains were buried in that cellar, and that any 
inquiries for her would be absolutely fruitless and futile? She had friends 
at home in England, friends in America, relatives in America. Any inquiry 
made at them? None, either before or after the flight. But the friends 
were persistent. " What has become of your wife? " they asked. 
" Where is she? " He told them lies, and they found them to be lies. 
They wanted to know the spot she died, the place where she was cremated. 
They were not friends to desert a woman whom they loved, and she was 
not the woman, whatever her quarrels with her husband might have been, 
to cut herself adrift from her friends in that way. The newspapers of 
two continents were ringing with this case. The police had circulated 
descriptions. 

It was suggested at this moment that Belle Elmore might be alive, 
that murders had been committed, or supposed to be committed, and 
persons wrongly convicted and hanged, and the supposed victims had 
reappeared. Was it not asking them to behave like children in a nursery 
listening to fairy tales to expect men to act on such a suggestion as thatt 
The jury were grown men, business men. If ever a fact was preyed 

159 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Mr. Muir 

beyond reasonable doubt to business men, courageously applying their 
minds to a difficult and a painful task, was not the fact proved that 
Belle Elmore was dead, and that the prisoner knew it? 

How did she die? She died of hyoscin poisoning, and the poison 
hyoscin was found in the remains of Belle Elmore. How did it get there? 
Crippen bought hyoscin on 19th January five grains of it. He had 
never bought it before or since. Two and a third grains he said he 
dispensed in medicines used in extremely rare and difficult cases not the 
kind of cases ordinarily dealt with through the post but not a patient 
called who ever got a pilule with hyoscin in it. A grain and two-thirds 
was left in his possession. Where was it? Measures, test tubes, and 
paraphernalia of that kind had been produced, but no hyoscin. He said 
it was there in a cupboard in his office when he went away. What had 
become of it? More than half a grain found in the dead body ! 

He could not help regretting that his learned friend allowed himself 
to say that it was unfortunate that Dr. Willcox knew before he found 
the hyoscin that the prisoner had purchased hyoscin. What did that 
mean, if not that Dr. Willcox, the senior analyst to the Home Office, was 
going to be dishonest enough to say that a substance was hyoscin when 
it was not, because it suited the case for the prosecution? That was 
the suggestion in all its naked absurdity, and he was sorry his learned 
friend ever made it. What else had he got to set up against Dr. 
Willcox and the other medical witnesses for the Crown? Scientific 
witnesses, so called, sometimes made sorry spectacles of themselves in the 
witness-box, but was there ever a sorrier spectacle than was presented 
by Mr. Wynter Blyth? Having had read to him this passage from his 
own book, " Further research has conclusively shown that at present no 
ptomaine is known which so closely resembles a vegetable poison as to be 
likely in skilled hands to cause confusion," he said that since he had 
been instructed in this case he had altered that opinion. He referred to 
the tests which were applied to discover whether the poison was hyoscin 
or not, and submitted that the suggestion of any confusion between 
atropine and hyoscyamin fell to the ground. It was undoubtedly hyoscin 
which was found in those remains. 

That is the case for the Crown. Ask yourselves in this most 
important case these questions. Where is Belle Elmore? Is your answer 
to be that she is dead? Then, whose remains were those in the cellar? 
Is your answer to be Belle Elmore's? If not Belle Elmore's, what con- 
ceivable explanation is there? None in the world. Who mutilated her 
body and put these remains there? Who but the prisoner had the oppor- 
tunity, the skill, the access to the pieces of pyjama jacket which were 
found in the grave? How did she die? Is your answer to be of hyoscin 
poisoning? If not, how did that person die? No sign upon the internal 
organs which were left, no sign on .post-mortem examination, of any cause 
of death at all except hyoscin poisoning. If your answer is to be that she 
died of hyoscin poisoning, where did she get it and who administered it? 
Crippen bought it it was not much known on 19th January, and Belle 
Elmore disappeared from this world on 1st February. Remember always 
160 



Closing Speech for the Crown. 



Mr. MuiP 



that it is for the Crown to make out their case. Do not act upon anything 
against the prisoner unless you are satisfied as reasonable men beyond 
all reasonable doubt. But if you are so satisfied, determine that thia 
murder, if it be a murder, shall not go unpunished. You are grown men, 
citizens of London. You are here to do your duty, to perform a difficult 
and painful task. From that duty a, jury of the City of London will not 
shrink. 



Charge to the Jury. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Gentlemen of the jury, the last two stages 
of this great and important case have now arrived, the stage of my 
discharging my duty in directing you on the facts and on the law; yours, 
that in the consideration of what your verdict should be when you come 
to retire and consider this case. This, gentlemen, is no place for com- 
pliments, but I cannot resist the temptation of saying that, speaking both 
of the conduct of the prosecution and the conduct of the defence, the 
conduct of the learned counsel is a model of what it should be in the 
conduct of criminal cases. 1 There has practically nothing been said 
which might not fairly be said for the prosecution and might not fairly be 
said for the defence. The weight of certain observations made on the 
one side and the other must of course be criticised, and ought to be 
criticised, but, speaking of the conduct of the case, it leaves nothing to be 
desired. 

Gentlemen, you were properly warned, both by Mr. Tobin and in his 
last speech by Mr. Muir, against allowing anything which has been said 
or published outside this Court to influence your judgment. I know the 
juries of the City of London too well again I scorn the idea of suggesting 
a compliment, but I say this, that I am sure that you know what your 
duty is, and that you intend to discharge your duty, and that is, to 
decide this case upon the sworn testimony that you have heard in this 
Court; and if anything has been said or written for or against this man 
(and much has been said and written on both sides) you will disregard 
it. It is one of the unfortunate incidents of our present life that this 
public discussion of criminal cases takes place beforehand. But I am 
thankful to say that in the administration of justice, judges, counsel, and 
juries are able to disregard those influences and discharge their duty. 

As regards the obligations in this case, they have been correctly 
stated by both counsel. They need only my confirmation in a few 
sentences. It is for the Crown to make out their case. And if you have 
any reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown have made out their case 
you must give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. It is the law of 
England, and you will do so. But you will have to decide the case upon 
the whole evidence, and you must not allow what I may call doubts aa 
to whether minor points have been established to influence your judgment, 
if upon the whole of the evidence you have no doubt as to the result. 

1 See Introduction. ED. 

161 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

Mr. Tobin in his speech to you, to which I know you paid the greatest 
attention, used two or three times the expression, " Certainty." Rightly 
understood, it is not a misleading word ; but if by that it is to be supposed 
that juries are not to act upon the evidence unless it puts them in the 
position of having actually seen the thing done, it is, of course, a mis- 
leading expression. You are to be satisfied upon the whole of the evidence 
that you have no reasonable doubt as to your verdict, that you have no 
more doubt than you would have in any important question of your life 
upon which you have to take action one way or another. You must be 
satisfied upon the evidence that the Crown have made out their case; if 
they have not, then the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted. 

Something has been said in this case (I refer to it because I want, 
if I can, to get away from generalities that do not touch the important 
matters in this case) about Dr. Crippen not having given evidence either 
before the magistrate or before the coroner. I do not agree in the 
observations made by Mr. Tobin that it is a prudent thing for an innocent 
man in any case to do what is called " reserve his defence." I think it 
is an error into which legal advisers have fallen for many years, as the 

) result of an old practice, and the sooner it is- recognised that the sooner 
; an innocent man gives his evidence and his statement the better for his 
case, there will be less difficulty and doubt in dealing with his case. But 
I do agree with Mr. Tobin that in this oa.se it does not make any material 
difference. Therefore I shall ask you to dismiss from your minds the fact 
that he did not give his evidence either before the Police Court or before 
the coroner. As to what he did say on certain other occasions it is, of 
course, most important, and the reason why I advise you not to attach 
too much weight to that argument or that suggestion is, that the Crown 
were in possession of what would be the case, or must be the case, if I may 
use the expression, for Dr. Crippen (apart from the medical evidence, which 
is entirely different) when he made the statement to Inspector Dew upon 
8th July. Therefore, with regard to what I may call the facts of the case, 
apart from the medical testimony, or testimony which is that of opinion 
based upon the conditions of the remains found, the Crown had the oppor- 
tunity of investigating it, and they most properly availed themselves of 
that opportunity by investigating as far as they possibly could the truth 
of the story when told. And they suggest to you that that story is not 
true. 

Gentlemen, you know what the crime of murder is. It means the 
causing the death of another intentionally and by your wilful act. I need 
not in this case discuss other forms of the crime of murder. That is the 
crime of murder charged here against Dr. Crippen, that he wilfully and 
intentionally killed his wife, poisoned his wife, and that he mutilated the 
body, and buried the remains in the cellar at 39 Hilldrop Crescent in order 
to conceal hia crime. From the first word Mr. Muir uttered in opening this 
case up to the last sentence in his speech to you a few moments ago he has 
not wavered from that position. There is no question here of suggesting 
that by some other means, or by some other method, or by some other 
agency Dr. Crippen caused the death of his wife. The Crown have from 
162 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



the first stated their case and adhered to it, and that is the case which you 
have got to try. You need not consider any other. 

It involves, of course, two questions, not really independent, but, still, 
the evidence upon them ought to be considered somewhat separately. The 
first question is, were the remains found at 39 Hilldrop Crescent the 
remains of Cora Crippen? If they were not, there is an end of this case. 
If you find that they were the remains of Cora Crippen, then you have got 
to ask yourselves, was her death occasioned by the wilful act of the defendant 
Crippen 1 If not, again the defendant is entitled to be acquitted. Those are 
the two issues that you have got to consider, and those are the issues upon 
which I shall ask you in a short time to concentrate your attention. 

It is open to a prisoner in any case to say to the Crown or the prosecu- 
tion, " You have not made out your case; I, through my counsel, say the 
evidence for the Crown does not substantiate the crime that you have 
charged against me." And in many cases, as no doubt you know, that 
course has been adopted with perfect wisdom, perfect prudence, perfect 
justice, and prisoners have been acquitted. It is not saying too much 
to say that in this case, had that course been adopted, Mr. Tobin's task 
would have been more difficult than it is at present. And therefore he 
recognised that, and in his opening statement his first words to you were, 
" As soon as I have sat down, my client Dr. Crippen will go into the box, 
and I will call medical testimony to rebut the statements of opinion and 
the statements of fact, so far as they are facts based upon opinion, which 
the medical witnesses for the Crown have put forward." Therefore, 
gentlemen, in this case there is imported into the case, quite properly, not 
what I will call a third issue, but a defence which, if made out, exonerates 
the defendant altogether. The defendant has not contented himself with 
saying, " You have not satisfied the jury that these remains are the remains 
of Cora Crippen." He has not satisfied himself with saying, " You have 
not satisfied the jury that Cora Crippen, or the woman whose remains are 
found, died from hyoscin poisoning." He says, " I will tell you what has 
happened to the woman so far as I can ; she is not dead. As far as I know, 
she left me of her own accord some time after between one and two o'clock 
or two or three o'clock on 1st February and six and seven o'clock in the 
evening when I returned to my house on that evening." That is the defence 
put forward by Dr. Crippen, which you must carefully consider. If made 
out, you need not trouble any more about whose the remains were. He 
could not be indicted in this case for being connected with the murder of 
a woman unknown. If the body in that cellar was not the body of Cora 
Crippen, but of some other person, Dr. Crippen is entitled to go out of 
this Court. And therefore his defence is a matter to be examined by you, 
and as carefully by the counsel for the Crown, as the other defences raised 
in this case. In addition, as you know, gentlemen, he says, " Even if 
you, the jury, do not believe my story about my wife leaving me on the 
morning of the day of 1st February, I am going to say that it is not my 
wife's body, and the person whose body it is was not killed by poison." 

Now, gentlemen, whatever may be your ultimate view in this case, we 
must all agree, or I suggest to you let me say once and for all, that if 
in the course of my summing up I say anything which leads you to think 

163 






Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

that I am expressing an opinion, please disregard it; it is my duty to direct 
you on the facts ; it is your duty to form an opinion as to what those facts 
establish. Therefore you must not think, in any matter that I am putting 
before you, if in the mode of my expression I indicate a certain view to 
you, that I am doing more than submitting it to you. But you will 
probably come to the opinion that, whatever be the truth in this case, the 
defendant is an extraordinary man. If he is guilty, as you may think, 
he is, of course, an extraordinary man. He has committed a ghastly crime ; 
he has covered up that ghastly crime, or endeavoured to, in a ghastly way, 
and he has behaved with the most brutal and callous indifference after 
the crime has been committed. If he is an innocent man, it is almost 
impossible, as you may probably think, to fathom his mind or his char- 
acter, again absolutely indifferent to the charge made against him of 
murder; having, according to him, I will not say a ready means, but at 
any rate the means of doing his utmost to establish his innocence, no step 
taken of any sort or kind by him. And, although defended by an able 
solicitor, who, it must be assumed, and will be assumed, would have done 
everything to endeavour to have established the innocence of his client that 
he could fairly and properly do, no step taken, as far as the evidence before 
you is concerned, to support and establish by other evidence the case made 
by Dr. Crippen in the box. I shall have to point out to you in detail in 
the course of this case, upon certain parts of it, that there is evidence not 
forthcoming which ought to be forthcoming if the defence is supposed to 
be made out I mean the defence of Mrs. Crippen having left on that day. 

Inasmuch as in my judgment that is one of the most important parts 
of the case, and it is an answer conclusive to everything else, I propose to 
examine the evidence upon that with you first. And I think it necessary 
to do so for the reason I have already given you, which I think it right to 
repeat. You are to draw no conclusion whatever against Dr. Crippen unless 
you are satisfied that the remains in the cellar are the remains of his wife, 
and that he in fact murdered his wife in the way suggested. You may think 
in the course of this case possibly, if the evidence does not satisfy you of 
that which Mr. Muir says it does, that these are the remains of another 
woman ; therefore I must tell you that you must draw no inference what- 
ever against Dr. Crippen if you are not satisfied that the mutilated remains 
are those of Mrs. Crippen. He is not here on any other charge than 
that of murdering his wife. Therefore you will see that, having elected 
not simply to criticise the evidence or answer what may be said to be 
the medical part of the case, or the part of the case which is based upon 
what the remains show, he goes into the box and he says, " My wife simply 
left me on the morning or some time between two o'clock and six o'clock 
on 1st February last. That is my answer to this case." And, if established, 
it is a perfectly clear answer. Do not think that I mean that that in any 
way relieves the Crown from the onus 1 of proving on the whole case, that 
Crippen did murder his wife. I only refer to it because it is entirely a 
separate incident in this case; it is an incident which the defendant has 
raised ; he is entitled to do so, as all men before conviction are entitled 
to have any questions they put fully considered. 

In order really to grasp the probabilities of the truth of that story, it 
164 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



is necessary to examine with some little care the life, the position, and, 
as far as we can tell it, the character of the people concerned. Of course, 
you cannot have sat in that box long in the course of this case without 
probably coming to the conclusion that if it is a simple question of oath 
against oath, or statement against statement, you cannot rely upon the 
mere statement made by Dr. Crippen. He has on his own confession lied 
for his own purpose, and was prepared to lie, if necessary, for the purpose 
of his own advantage. Even when he was purporting to tell the truth, 
certain things were false, and false to his own knowledge, though he was 
asserting the truth. Now, here, again, let me caution you. This is not 
a Court of morals, this 1 is a Court of law. The fact that Mrs. Crippen, or 
Belle Elmore, was an immoral woman at some time, the fact that the man 
confessedly is a very immoral man, and has been living under improper 
circumstances with Ethel Le Neve, isi a matter that you may regret in your 
own minds; but you must not visit him or find against him the charge that 
is to be proved because he is an immoral man or because he is a liar. What 
you are entitled to do is to take into consideration those circumstances 
where they have a direct bearing upon the question of fact which you are 
considering. It is quite obvious, from the speeches both of Mr. Tobin and 
of Mr. Muir, that the fact that Dr. Crippen has lied on material points 
in this case is a very important matter for your consideration. I will tell you 
why. I put it, as I think it my duty to do, not in the game words, but in 
the same way as it has been put a few minutes ago by Mr. Muir. You 
have got to consider it. It is said by the Crown that Crippen's conduct, 
Crippen's lies, Crippen's life from 1st February until 8th July, was an 
impossibility if there was any risk of his wife reappearing. What Mr. Muir 
put to him, what Mr. Muir has quite properly from the Crown's point of 
view pressed upon you, is that the story that his wife left him on that 1st 
of February cannot be true, because of the things that were done by Crippen 
after that 1st February and down to 8th July. It therefore becomes very 
material, for you have got now to deal with the whole case the evidence 
for the defence as well as the evidence for the Crown. You have got to 
say whether upon the whole of that evidence because the Crown may use 
any part of itthe Crown have made out their case, and it becomes most 
material to examine with some little care whether the arguments of Mr. 
Tobin and Mr. Muir on the one side or on the other are well founded or 
not. Mr. Tobin says, " Belle Elmore may be alive." Mr. Tobin says, 
" Sometimes people have been convicted of murder when the supposed 
murdered person was walking about the world ; this may be one of those 
cases; be careful how you act" a perfectly proper caution. Mr. Muir 
saysi, " The life of this man after 2nd February was such that it was an 
absolute impossibility unless he knew the wife could never appear again." 

Now, what wasi the character of the woman? Her character, her 
history, and her habits are not disputed by Dr. Crippen or by his counsel ; 
a woman who had had a past, who had married and lived with this man 
for eighteen years, who, on Dr. Crippen's statement' there again you 
must be a little careful how you act upon it, though it is possibly true 
had not cohabited with him since they went to Hilldrop Crescent in 
September, 1905 ; a woman making warm friendships, very popular, very 

165 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Lord Chief Justice 

vivacious, and in a position to her which was a position of very con- 
siderable comfort, not wanting in money, having, according to Dr. Crippen, 
plenty, having a most remarkable amount, not of mere tawdry jewellery, 
but of valuable jewellery not only have you had some of the articles pro- 
duced before you, but you know that the pawnbrokers lent him money 
upon them, advanced him no less than 80 upon one part and 115 upon 
another part, and, according to Crippen's statement, he had 90 worth of 
diamonds upon him still when he was arrested; in other words, it was 
jewellery such as a person in that class of life would be very fond of. 
The woman, you have heard, was very fond of clothes, always beautifully 
dressed, spick and span; therefore she was in a position that many women 
of that rank of life would aspire to have; the wife of a man who was 
reputable, at any rate to the public eye, with a perfectly respectable 
and honest business, living comfortably and happily in Hilldrop Crescent 
for nearly five years more than four years before she disappears. True, 
they kept no servant, but it is not in the least an uncommon circumstance 
in life that people in that position, especially where there are no children, 
have no servant, but do some" of the house work with the assistance of a 
charwoman. It is in evidence before you, and uncontradicted, that she 
cooked the dinner on that night of 31st January, and they all seem to 
have enjoyed themselves 1 ; therefore the fact that she had no servant 
does not seem to throw any light upon thisi matter on one side or the 
other. She is the treasurer of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild, a very 
useful institution for the purpose of providing for music hall artistes. She 
attends regularly every Wednesday. She was seen on all the Wednes- 
days in January up to the 26th ; in fact, the last time that she was seen 
alive by many of the witnesses was at the meeting of the Music Hall 
Ladies' Guild on 26th January. She was obviously popular. The wit- 
nesses who have been called there are a good many of them I will 
merely run through the names, and you will remember their evidence 
Mrs. Martinetti, Miss May, Mrs. Harrison, Dr. Burroughs, and Mr. 
Rylance those are quite sufficient for the purpose of indicating what I 
mean they speak of this lady as being a vivacious and lively person, 
and a person with keen friendships'. 

It is not immaterial to remember that according to the statements 
made in some of the documents in evidence before you, particularly that 
letter of 2nd April, it is said that she was in the habit of corresponding 
with her friends on any important events; and it appears from the 
evidence of Mrs. Martinetti, which you will remember, that when she 
heard of her going to America, she said at once, " What a strange thing 
that she should go without telling me." 

That is the life of a woman who leaves, on the defendant's statement, 
upon 1st February, without saying anything more to him than " I will have 
an end of it; I am going to leave you"; according to the defendant's 
story, having been angered with him for this perfectly ridiculous and 
trivial suggestion that because Mr. Paul Martinetti, who wanted to go up- 
stairs to a lavatory, went out of the room a visitor at his house, according 
to Crippen, every other week; he says he came to their house and he 
went to theirs about once a week after he had gone his wife says that is the 
reason for her leaving him nothing to do with another man so far. 
166 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



Then the suggestion made by Dr. Crippen is that she left to go to 
Bruce Miller. Now, again, we are not here to consider what her relations 
with Bruoe Miller were. It is perfectly true, as Mr. Muir has told you, 
that people in that classi of life probably use more warm expressions or 
more vigorous expressions than some other people would do. On the 
other hand, Mr. Tobin is quite entitled to say, of a man' who has never 
seen Dr. Crippen, who admits visiting the wife up to the year 1904, that 
that sort of communication might mean a great deal more. You have 
nothing in the world to do with the immoralities, if they were immorali- 
ties, of Belle Elmore, any more than you have to do with the immoralities 
of Dr. Crippen, except in so far as they help you to come to a judgment 
on the other factsi of the case. Mr. Bruce Miller has come here, and 
has said that he has never seen that lady for the last six years; that he 
wrote to her at Christmas and the New Year, and that sort of thing; 
that she never came to him in the year 1910, and that he has never seen 
her, as I have said, for the last six years. Of course, one most extra- 
ordinary thing will probably .strike you that if Crippen honestly believed 
that the woman had gone to Bruce Miller at Chicago when he made that 
suggestion that I shall have to refer to later to Mr. Dew on 8th July you 
would have thought that there was one channel at least whereby inquiries 
might be made of a most important character; and probably the thought 
has occurred to you, if Dr. Crippen believed that his wife had gone, either 
for a moral or immoral purpose, to visit Bruce Miller, among her own 
friends, how is it that no inquiry was made by Dr. Crippen of Bruoe 
Miller? 

That is all one can say with regard to the probabilities' of the case so 
far as they rest upon the character of Belle Elmore herself. All the 
witnesses called for the prosecution who knew her, and were members of the 
guild, expected to see her upon 2nd February, that is to say, upon the 
Wednesday; they all say so; and you will remember that that was known 
to Dr. Crippen; because in the letters, which I need not read again 
I shall refer to them in a moment in passing he says that she is not 
able to go there because of the sudden engagement taking her to America. 
The letter is written by Dr. Crippen, you will remember, and he sends back 
the cheque book and asks them to appoint another treasurer. 

Now, something has occurred which in the morning of 2nd February 
makes it necessary for Dr. Crippen to make a communication on Belle 
Elmore's behalf. You will remember that he takes down either writes 
at the place or takes down to Albion House two letters of 2nd February 
which were handed by Miss Le Neve according to his statement (and 
I think Mrs. Martinetti says so), one to the secretary and one to a 
member of the committee. 

What next happens which you must consider? On that 2nd February 
Crippen pawns jewellery to the value of upwards 1 of 100, and gets 80 
for it. You will have to ask yourselves that question which Mr. Muir 
has put to you not only why should this woman, fond of dress, take 
practically no clothing away with her, but why did she not take her 
jewellery? So far as she was concerned, it was hers; she had enjoyed 
it. It may be, aa Dr. Crippen suggested to you, that he originally 
bought it, and therefore he claimed to sell it, and on some dispute between 

167 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Thief Justice 

the husband and wife some question of the kind might have arisen; but 
Belle Elmore when she left, according to Dr. Crippen, on 1st February, 
would regard that jewellery as hers. You must ask yourselves the question 
if it is true that that woman left on 1st February, if it is true that she 
went away, why did she leave the bulk of her jewellery behind her; why 
did she leave, as far as one can tell, the bulk of her fine clothes behind 
her not only the furs which might keep her warm for they are expensive 
furs but furs which were pretty valuable and women, of course, know 
the value of furs of that kind. It is a very remarkable incident in this 
case, and I thought it right to put this to Dr. Crippen myself, " Can you 
tell me of anything which she took away? " All he could say was that 
on the evening of 1st of February when he came back the room was in 
confusion. " Can you tell me of any trunks^which were taken away? '* 
" I believe one trunk wag taken away." It is a very serious matter, and 
you must consider it. Can you believe that statement of Belle Elmore 
leaving the house under those circumstances on 1st February, when she was 
due at the meeting of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild on the 2nd, with the 
only excuse given that suggested by Dr. Crippen leaving practically all 
her jewellery, and, as far as one can tell, all her clothes behind her. 
This attracts attention at once; because you will remember that Mrs. 
Martinetti said that when, knowing the habits of the woman, she asked 
Crippen what she had taken away, he said he thought she had taken one 
basket, whereupon Mrs. Martinetti said, " That won't be enough for 
Belle " ; the reply from Crippen, "Oh, she can buy some more clothes " 
I think he said " in New York," it does; not matter where for this pur- 
pose in America. 

Now, gentlemen, on the 2nd you have got to ask yourselves this 
question, what is the reason that this man is suddenly found pawning 
jewellery for 80, and on the 9th pawning jewellery for 115? And 
here I come to the first two points upon which oorroboration, if this story 
had been true, would have been very valuable. It is not in the least 
the duty or necessity of the defendant to call corroborative evidence if he 
is only criticising the evidence of the Crown ; but if he is establishing as 
part of his defence an affirmative story, you are entitled to ask, par- 
ticularly knowing what sort of a man he is, where are the persons to 
whom he gave away that money? He says he paid away part of it for 
advertisements; he says he paid away part of it to advertise some new 
medicine later on, later in the month of February or early in March. 
The suggestion was made by the prosecution quite properly to you, where 
was that money spent? what was it wanted for? if wanted for the purpose 
of enjoyment with Ethel Le Neve, or if wanted for the legitimate purposes 
of his business. Of course in the latter case there would be no difficulty, 
or ought not to be any difficulty, in giving some corroborative evidence 
about it. It rests entirely upon the statement made by Dr. Crippen, 
nnd by nobody else. 

I am not going through all these lying letters. I agree in one 

sense with the observation made by Dr. Crippen in the box when he said 

to Mr. Muir, " What is the good of your asking me these questions, 

because I admit it"; and therefore there is nothing to be gained so far 

168 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



as you are concerned by reading these letters to you again. It is the 
most remarkable set of statements that has ever come to my notice, 
beginning by saying that his wife has been taken ill at St. Louis in 
America; going on with the statement that it was pleuro-pneumonia ; and 
then that he had received a telegram that she was very ill, and that he 
had received letters from her in which she was trying to make out that 
she \vas better; and finally, on 24th March, sending that telegram to Mrs. 
Martinetti, " Poor Belle died yesterday; please tell Annie." Nothing 
is to be gained as far as your consideration and mine are concerned by 
going through the details of it. They are established by the Crown; 
they are not disputed by Dr. Crippen; in fact, he says they are part of 
his scheme for covering up the scandal. I do not repeat what has been 
said by the counsel for the prosecution what the scandal was it is difficult 
to see. The importance of it is this, that this misrepresentation went on 
for a period, practically speaking, of nearly six months from 1st 
February until 8th July not quite six months. I do not refer to his 
going to the ball and all that kind of thing. Certainly the letter of llth 
April, the one that was produced here for the first time, written to " My 
Dear Louise and Robert," is a most remarkable letter giving every 
detail, that she would not take proper care of herself, and how the disease 
began with a cold, and she got worse; next, of his getting a cable that she 
was dangerously ill culminating with the telegram to Mrs. Martinetti, 
" Belle died yesterday," and the advertisement or announcement in The 
Era of the " Death of Belle Elmore, Mrs. Crippen." 

The question you have got to ask yourselves is that which has been 
put to you more than once in the course of this case by the counsel for the 
prosecution ; I only repeat it because I cannot see any better way of putting 
it to you ; was that possible except with the knowledge that the wife could 
not appear? Friends in America, gone to America, friends at home making 
inquiries; put off, hoodwinked we need not care about the dates, but 
hoodwinked in a disgraceful way by mourning black-edged paper, and so 
forth. Do not consider it from the point of view of taste. Consider it 
from the point of view of upon which side the truth lies. If you come t j 
the conclusion that the game was so enormously dangerous that Dr. Crippen 
could not have possibly carried it out if he thought his wife might appear 
again, you will ask yourselves, can you believe the story that his wife left 
him on 1st February. 

As I have said, the case is not a pleasant one; on the contrary, this 
case is painful from beginning to end. There is nothing to be gained by 
recalling the lies or repeating them again ; they have been stated to you 
in the course of the evidence; the letters have been read. If you care to 
have any one at the proper time you shall have it. But the broad point 
you have to consider is this, in the case of the Martinettis, in the case 
of Dr. Burroughs, in the case of Miss May, and the case of Mrs. Harrison, 
and the case of others letters to America if Belle Elmore is in the living 
flesh would it have been possible would even the defendant have had the 
courage to do what he did ? But, then, you must take into consideration 
in connection with what Mr. Muir has perfectly properly said to you, that 
nearly five months have passed since this event. The newspapers in two 

169 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



Lord Chief Justice 

continents have been full of the case. The man was arrested, as you know, 
in consequence of the agency of this new invention, wireless telegraphy; 
there is no doubt about that; it is a matter that could not have been 
established but for that invention; that part is common knowledge; he is 
arrested in Canada, and then the story is known all over the world. It 
is a very serious, suggestion to make to you, as it is made by the counsel 
for the defence, that Belle Elmore may be alive. If Belle Elmore is alive, 
is it possible to think that this has not come to her knowledge? Does 
that man in the dock mean to suggest that so bad is this woman who was 
his wife for eighteen years, and whom, apart from her being angry and 
bad tempered, he does not make any serious complaint against that she is 
so mean and so abominably wicked as to allow this man to stand his trial 
in the dock- without making any communication or anything of the kind ? 
That is what you have got to consider in this part of the case. That has 
nothing to do, as I have told you already, with the question of whether 
the Crown have proved their affirmative case. In order to answer it the 
defendant has elected to put before you evidence entirely of his own, but 
still his own evidence, in which he says, ' ' The whole thing is a myth ; I 
know nothing about the remains in the cellar ; I do not pretend to give any 
explanation ; but, as far as my wife is concerned, it was an ordinary case of 
a woman going off with another man; she left me, and I told these lies 
because she said ' cover up the scandal as best you can.' ' It must not be 
forgotten that it does not develop into a charge of murder until the month 
of July. I am a little anticipating, but you will have to ask yourselves 
later on, when you come to see what the defendant was doing in the month 
of July, whether or not it is quite consistent with the statement that he 
was only covering up the scandal. You would think, or, rather, I suggest 
to you that you may think, that when on the 8th of July it was suggested 
that he must find his wife, or that serious trouble would come, at least then 
the sense of natural preservation, to say nothing of honesty, would lead 
him to take steps to find her. 

Now, gentlemen, I have left that part of the case. As I have told 
you, I have dealt with it first because, if you believe the story for the defence, 
it is a conclusive answer to this charge, and you need not trouble about 
the other points. You ha,ve heard such speeches from the learned counsel 
that that is not necessary ; but I have dealt with this part of the case because 
it is a separate issut altogether, and if, upon considering the whole of this 
case, you come to the conclusion that you are not satisfied with Crippen's 
account, then you have to consider with me whether the Crown have estab- 
lished their case upon the two issues of Cora Crippen's remains being those 
found in the house, and of that woman having been poisoned by the act of 
the defendant. Of course, if that is true, it is a further contradiction in 
terms of the story he has told you; but I felt it right, as this case has been 
seriously raised by the defendant and insisted upon quite properly by his 
counsel who represents him, to .put before you the probabilities on the 
one side and on the other as far as we can gather them from the evidence, 
and you will have to ask yourselves can you believe that story, that the 
wife went away, in face of what the defendant was doing impossible, as 
170 



Charge to the Jury. 

Lord Chief Justice 

Mr. Muir says, unless he knew that the wife's mouth never could be opened 
to answer the lies falling from him. Gentlemen, it will be convenient to 
break off there. 

The FOREMAN OF THE JURY One of my fellow-jurymen wants to know 
whether your lordship will allow him to look at one of those bottles again 
the specimens in the jar? 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I am coming to that part of the case. I will 
see that that is sent to you I will deal with that part of the case later. 

(Adjourned for a short time.) 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Gentlemen of the jury, I shall be able to 
condense into a comparatively short space of time the observations I have 
to make upon the other issues in the case; they were very fully considered 
by Mr. Tobin for the defence and by Mr. Muir for the prosecution, and I 
do not propose to go over the same points. I will refer to them, and sum 
them up in the course of my examination with you of some of the material 
points. I assume now that you will approach the case from the point of 
view of considering whether the Crown have made out their case, and not 
from the point of view of considering whether the defendant's story of the 
wife having gone away is correct. 

Now, the first and important question is, how long were those remains 
in the ground? You will remember that from the 29th September I think, 
to be accurate, the 21st September, 1905 this house in Hilldrop Crescent 
had been in the occupation of Dr. and Mrs. Crippen. It is a small semi- 
detached house, with the ground floor rather high up high steps going up 
to the ground floor; a kitchen and what has been called a breakfast room 
below, two rooms on the ground floor, two rooms above, and two rooms 
above that. Now, nobody has been there since September, 1905, except 
Dr. Crippen and his wife. Mr. Muir asked Dr. Crippen it was only, of 
course, a formal question whether he had any suggestion to make as to 
who had done this, or who could have put those remains there, and he could 
not give any explanation. He is not in the least bound to give any explana- 
tion, unless you think there is affirmative evidence that compels him to 
do so. Therefore the first and most important thing is, how long had -the 
remains been there? 

Fortunately, for the interests of justice, there are certain things 
which may enable you to fix that pretty accurately, and perhaps the most 
important thing is the pyjama jacket. I apprehend that you would like 
when you retire to have that pyjama jacket, and I think the trousers, 
exhibit 48, and the two jars with the jacket; they shall be in your room, 
so that you can examine them. You shall have a magnifying glass, so that 
you can see them. You are, of course, to act upon the evidence, but you may 
test the evidence for yourselves in any way you like by fair examination. 
The Crown say two witnesses for the Crown have sworn it (and it ia 
very remarkable, as Mr. Muir said to you this morning, that the witnesses 
for the defence do not contradict it) that examining the piece of pyjama 
jacket in the bottle and the pyjama trousers, the number of threads' in the 

171 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

count are the same. At any rate, you can see that the pattern is the same ; 
of course, that -which has been in the ground, and has been in all sorts 
of spirits, will not look the same, but they say you can trace. There 
is also upon the piece of pyjama jacket undoubtedly there is no doubt 
about that the identical label, " Jones Brothers, Limited, Holloway, 
N.," and when it was put to Dr. Crippen yesterday, and he was asked 
to look at it, he said they looked very much like. I am not sure that it 
was put to any other witnesses for the defence, nor does it matter, because 
you have the evidence for the prosecution on the one side, and you must 
be satisfied, of course, that they are right. We have now got beyond all 
question when that pyjama jacket was bought and sold " Jones, Limited," 
did not become a limited company until 1906. That takes you, of course, 
far back, but still it shows that it is during Crippen's tenancy of the Hill- 
drop Crescent house. In addition to that, it is now established that three 
sets of pyjamas, of which those trousers formed one, were sold on the 5th 
January, 1909. It was put by the Crown that they were bought by the 
wife, and paid for by the wife. I do not think that that is established. 
What is established is that they were delivered and 17s. 9d. paid for them 
at 39 Hilldrop Crescent, with two other classes of articles, on the 5th 
January; Mr. Chilvers, who was not cross-examined, establishes 1 that so 
far as his evidence goes, if you believe that he is making no mistake. There- 
fore, if the piece in the jar is, on the evidence, to your satisfaction estab- 
lished to be of the same material as the trousers, which are not quite the 
same pattern as the other two, that establishes the fact, or is evidence on 
which you may come to the conclusion that what was found in the grave 
was a jacket belonging to that third set of pyjamas. It is said, and said 
quite truly, that the trousers 1 are somewhat worn. We have not heard 
anything of the somewhat interesting account given by Mr. Tobin as to 
how the jacket wears out and the trousers do not ; I really know nothing 
about that; I did not quite appreciate it, and I do not think you did, and 
it has not very much to do with the case, because we have to deal with the 
evidence. If you should come to the conclusion that the pyjama jacket 
bought on the 5th January, 1909, was worn off and on during tne year 
1909, and that those trousers, of which it formed part when they were sold, 
were in use, then you get this 1 fact, that there is evidence of a suit of 
pyjamas being sold on the 5th January, 1909, worn from time to time 
during the year 1909, and the jacket of that suit is found in the grave. 
If so, not only does it make it after the 5th January, 1909, but it makes* 
it so long after the 5th January, 1909, that the trousers at any rate present 
a worn appearance. Whether or not that stuff in the bottle which has been 
in the grave was also worn I do not pretend to say, and I do not think it 
matters very much. 

Now, gentlemen, that is a most important matter; and it is a very 
unfortunate thing for the defence, so far as this is concerned, that no 
explanation is suggested of how the pyjama jacket bought in the year 
1909, if it be the same, is in the grave. Of course, the suggestion of the 
prosecution is that, having to wipe things up, or to wrap things up, that 
jacket was used, and then put with other things 1 into the remains, it never 
being thought that they would come to human eight again. The evidence 
172 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 

given by Dr. Grippen yesterday I do not think is much worth while calling 
attention to, because in the box, as out of it, he certainly was ready to 
make statements which he afterwards had to admit not to be true. He 
at first said with great confidence that his wife never bought pyjamas, 
that he always preferred to buy them himself. He then said with equal 
confidence that those sets were part of two which he bought in September 
of last year, 1909, and that the trousers were part of an old set which 
he bought some time back. When he was further pressed by Mr. Muir, 
who put it to him distinctly that they were bought by his wife at a sale at 
J}ontes in January, 1909, he said it might be so; and when I pointed out 
to him that he had sworn exactly the contrary, and that his wife had never 
bought pyjamas for him, he said he had been too confident in answering 
the first question. You must judge him, you have heard him, and I can 
say no more. No explanation is offered or suggested as to how these 
pyjamas got there; but we know that, if this evidence is true, they must 
have been put there considerably later than January, 1909. 

Now, the witnesses for the Crown put the period in which the remains 
were, or might have been, in the ground, at four to eight months. It ia 
agreed that unless you see the remains of a body in the ground pretty 
soon after they are removed you cannot form any opinion at all. I am 
not going through that part of the evidence. You have heard the 
evidence of the doctor. He said he thought at first a much shorter 
period, but when he found the amount of adipocere, which isi the softening, 
I understand, or the change in the fatty parts, he thought it must have been 
something like four months, and from the small putrefaction of other parts 
he considered it could not be longer than eight months. Mr. Tobin haa 
read, and read with the entire approval of the witnesses for the prosecu- 
tion, extracts from a medical work to the effect that it is difficult to tell 
for what period a body has been buried; that one body will remain 
unchanged much longer than another buried in the same soil. Gentle- 
men, it is for you to say, but it would seem a very small matter if you 
come to the conclusion that it must have been after January, 1909, because, 
as has been truly said by Mr. Muir, no other person hasi disappeared, 
and you have got to account in some way or other for the presence in this 
grave of those remains. 

Assuming that you are satisfied that they had been in the grave 
within such a time as is consistent with Cora Crippen's disappearance, 
are they the remains of Cora Crippen's body? We now come to a 
question, which I agree with Mr. Muir may be stated in two ways, are 
the remains the remains of a woman? if they are the remains of a woman, 
was that woman Cora Crippen? Gentlemen, that they are the remains of 
a woman now is really not seriously disputed. It is perfectly true that 
with regard to a part of the case of really great importance, the scar, 
which I will come to in a few moments, Dr. Willcox, I think it was or one 
of the witnesses for the Crown, said with very great candour that the 
scar would not indicate a man or a woman, because you might have a 
scar in that place, the middle of the stomach, upon a man, for certain 
operations of the bladder and so on, or at the back. But you will ask 
yourselves, if .some person was for some purpose murdered and had 
o 173 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

interred the remains, and they were not those of a woman, why should 
the body be clothed in a woman's vest? why should there be a woman's 
vest with lace on the arms? which, of course, you know only adorns the 
garments of women who like that kind of adornment ; why should there be 
the woman's combinations? and why should there be one, two, or, I think, 
three Hinde's hair curlers with hair in them, not disputed by any witness 
for the defence to be woman's hair? 

Gentlemen, I think I may pass for the purpose of your consideration 
from the question of whether it was a man or woman. Of course, if it 
was a man, again the defendant is entitled to walk out of that dock. 

Now, being a woman, was that Cora Crippen or not? The evidence 
here, though not so certain, because there are many women with brown 
hair, and many we know who dye their hair, is not unimportant. The 
pieces of hair were shown to Mrs. Harrison. She said that the unbleached 
portions that she could see corresponded with what she had seen in 
lifetime; that she had seen Belle Elmore'e, Mrs. Crippen's hair down, 
and th_ere were portions near the root which were brown ; and Crippen 
in his evidence admits that to be in accordance with the facts, although 
he says that you could only see the brown hair near the roots, which would 
be quite natural if she dyed it pretty often, because Belle Elmore was 
very particular about the light-coloured hair being seen. That is an 
incident in this case; it is for you to say whether it is true or not. It 
has not been cross-eiamined on. On the other hand it may not have been 
so important, but you must consider it. One witness has said that a 
certain portion of the hair is pubio hair, which would be 
dry; that was brown hair corresponding with the undyed portion 
of the other hair, which may have come from the head. Therefore 
there is that piece of evidence in connection with the identity of the 
remains, supplemented by what I have already mentioned to you in another 
connection in point of time, that in the grave is found the pyjama, 
the property of Crippen, if it be so established, and the parts of the 
dress which it is said by Mrs 1 . Harrison are similar to those which were 
always worn by Mrs. Crippen. 

I come now to that which has been the battleground in this case, 
and that is that piece of flesh. You have seen it more than once. It 
hag been a gruesome task, but we have had to see it; we have heard the 
evidence upon it, and I am not going through it again, but I am going to 
remind you of what the dispute is. For that purpose I will very briefly 
take Mr. Pepper's evidence and Dr. Turnbull's evidence, who are the two 
rivals. Mr. Pepper says it undoubtedly comes from the lower part of the 
abdomen of a woman. It is not to be forgotten Mr. Muir did not 
attach any too much importance to it that when it was examined into at 
the Police Court, on the report of Dr. Wall and Dr. Turnbull, Mr. Newton 
was instructed that it never came from the abdomen at all ; and you 
heard in Court yesterday by Dr. Turnbull and Dr. Wall the reasons for 
their statement, which they then made with every confidence, that as there 
were no characteristic aponeuroses it could not be abdominal. That 
they stated as their reason for the report. There is no blame to Mr. 
Newton, nor to the defendant for this purpose. Mr. Newton waa so 
174 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



instructed, and did cross-examine I am speaking of the proceedings at 
the Police Court on the footing that it was not abdominal at all. 

Now, take those two witnesses. I say nothing about the way in 
which they gave their evidence. It is always unpleasant to criticise expert 
witnesses. You saw the difficulty they were in. It amounted to this, 
that they could not suggest any part of the body from which it could come, 
consistently with what they found there, except the lower part of the 
abdomen, and the characteristic answer was given by Dr. Turnbull, which 
I will read to you from my own note. " The aponeurosis is split in the 
way it is found in the lower part of the abdomen." Mr. Pepper and 
the other witnesses for the Crown say that the piece which they examined 
has got the aponeurosis in it, and further say, for reasons they gave you 
and I am not going through that agaljn that they had no doubt that it 
came from the lower part of the abdomen. That isi not now disputed. 
It turns out, though I daresay Mr. Tobin did not mislead me, I was not 
so far wrong in thinking that the cross-examination was directed to show 
that it came from another part of the body, because it does turn out now 
that that was the case in the Police Court. Therefore you have the 
evidence before you, not contradicted nay, acquiesced in by the defendant's 
witnesses, that it came from the lower part of the abdomen. 

Now is that a scar or not? There has been a little misunderstanding 
about this part of the case, and I want to make it plain to you. It is not 
now disputed that Belle Elmore had a soar in that place due to an operation 
for ovarotomy, which means taking out the ovaries. It extended 
roughly, up to, or near, if not as far as the navel. It was originally 
6 inches long, and subsequently contracted. In addition to the suggestion 
made about the poison, and having heard that poison had been found, it 
was also suggested that before these gentlemen made their examination 
they knew that she had a scar. If they did, it was perfectly right that 
they should know it, because they had to look for what would identify the 
body, and I cannot understand what was meant by the suggestion that it 
was " unfortunate " that they knew that Belle Elmore had a scar. 

You are dealing with a piece of flesh which is very different from 
what it was when it first went into the ground, and all the medical 
men agree that it would have been much easier to judge if the piece of 
flesh had been seen sooner. The medical men for the Crown saw it 
sooner, but not much sooner. Mr. Pepper says, and he is supported by 
Dr. Spilebury, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Willcox, " This is a scar similar 
to that which I have seen over and over again on the stomach or abdomen 
of a woman who has had this operation done; as a rule, with women 
it is wider near the bottom than it is towards the top, and it presents 
exactly the appearances that Belle Elmore' s operation would present." 
Further than that, they said, " I examined it for sebaceous glands and for 
hair follicles, and in the scar properly so called there are none." Further, 
Dr. Spilsbury said there is enclosed (I think it is called) in the scar a piece 
of epidermis that has come from the side, and in that you can see both 
the sebaceous glands and the follicles, because they correspond with the 
uncut skin, if I may use the expression, on the other side. 

Remember at the time this was before the Police Court in the 

175 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

first instance, the scar was unimportant from the point of view of the 
defence, because their case was that this was not the abdomen at 
all. It goes, from the buttock to the top of the thigh, or it is somewhere 
else, and I do not know that we need trouble at all about that. When 
they come into Court here they, for the first time, develop this theory. 
They say if you examine the scar you will find in the scar properly so- 
called one sebaceous gland and four or five, I think, hair follicles, which 
was the thing which Dr. Spilsbury had spoken to in connection with the 
included piece. When Dr. Turnbull is cross-examined as to the possi- 
bility of there being an included piece of epidermis in the scar he says, 
" I have read of this happening, but I have never seen it." The witnesises 
for the Crown tell you that they have seen it repeatedly. You will judge 
as between these witnesses which is right. 

It is frankly admitted by the Crown that if in an ordinary piece of scar 
there are sebaceous glands and hair follicles, that is not scar proper, but 
they point out to you that you may have that appearance locally in a part 
of the scar, and, rightly or wrongly it is entirely for you the witnesses 
for the Crown swear that there are no sebaceous, glands 1 in the scar proper, 
whereas there are sebaceous glands on either side. Gentlemen, you and I 
had a further examination yesterday of course, in the presence of the 
prisoner's counsel. There was one remarkable piece of evidence given not 
contradicted by Dr. Turnbull, although I do not say he assented to it, 
because, of course, he had given evidence to the contrary. Mr. Pepper 
said, you can see under the magnifying glass in that scar, practically 
speaking, the irregular line of the knife from top to bottom. Now, if that 
is so, gentlemen (you will be able to judge when you come to look at it 
again), we need not trouble much more about it. Mr. Tobin made a point 
of this and he is quite entitled to ask your consideration to it that on 
that piece of flesh there is; no navel. The witnesses for the Crown admit 
that the muscle went up asi far as the navel, and probably round it, but 
they say they think the navel has been removed from that piece of skin. 
Mr. Tobin, I think, three or four times said to you that Mrs. Martinetti 
said she saw the woman's navel, and Crippen 's evidence, though I am 
afraid you must take it with some reserve, was that hi wife had a navel. 
You will have to ask yourselves, if a woman looks at another woman's 
stomach casually, and there is a scar which excites her attention, which 
cornea up to the position of the navel; navels are a different shape, some- 
times there are projections 1 , and so on do you think that what is said 
to have been seen by Mr. Martinetti is sufficient to contradict the 
evidence which you have heard on the other side, if it is satisfactory to 
you? 

I do not propose to read again at length to you the reasons given 
by the defendant's two witnesses for saying that it is not a scar. I remind 
you again that they were prepared up to the 7th October to say that there 
was no aponeurosis at all, that there was nothing upon the skin or flesh 
which would enable you to put the piece of flesh into its place upon the 
body, that it came from the thigh or the buttock. When they are cross- 
examined they entirely abandon that position and say that the best opinion 
they can give now, with all their examination, is that it came from the 
place in which it was sworn that it came from by the witnesses for the 
176 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



Crown, namely, from the lower part of the abdomen. Gentlemen, you 
will, of course, consider all that evidence, but you must regard with some 
reserve the evidence of a man who has given such positive evidence that 
it was not the abdomen, and has abandoned that, and has fallen back upon 
there being no scar. If the appearance of the one sebaceous gland and 
the five follicles of hair is due to the fact that there was an included piece 
of epidermis, the whole matter is explained without any difficulty. It is 
entirely for you. We are dealing with a mark which is some 6 inches long 
I do not know exactly, but that is near enough and in which it is said 
by the witnesses for the Crown they can see the marks of the knife. If 
so, it is a very remarkable coincidence. In order to satisfy you that it is 
not Cora Crippen, the defence must have satisfied you that there is no 'scar 
there. Coupled with the pyjama and the camisole and the combinations 
and the vests, you have to ask yourselves have you any doubt that that 
is the body of Cora Crippen ? 

Now, I must for one moment consider the theory of Dr. Turnbull. 
I wish to speak with great respect, and it is not for me, and it is not for 
you, to judge. You saw him in the witness-box. You saw him roll that 
piece of flesh over twice. They account for the left side of the horse shoe, 
as Mr. Tobin called it, by saying it is caused by a fold, and in order to 
make it the shape, broader at the bottom and narrower at the top, you 
have to fold it twice over, and you saw yesterday that, with the piece of 
flesh, which then would be freshly cut from the body, it is possible either 
to extend it or to fold it twice over. You must ask yourselves why anybody 
who was burying the body should roll it over twice. One cannot understand 
why; it is entirely for you. If you think it possible, of course, you may 
attach importance to the theory of the rolling over. But observe what 
you have to deal with. You have got a mark which resembles a scar, sworn 
by the witnesses for the Crown to the best of their belief to be a scar similar 
to scars they have frequently seen, sworn by the witnesses for the defence 
to be not a scar at all, but to be caused by a fold. Gentlemen, it is entirely 
for you. If you come to the conclusion that that piece of flesh was the 
abdomen with the scar on it, the mark of an operation for ovariotomy if 
you come to the conclusion that it was put into the grave with hair and 
hair curlers, the hair dyed in the way that Cora Crippen dyed hers, corre- 
Bponding with the undyed part of the hair on her pubis, and buried with 
the pyjamas and the other garments, it is for you to say, have you any 
doubt that that is the body of Cora Crippen? 

That brings me, not to the last, but to the last point but one the last 
part of the evidence so far as it depends upon medical testimony what was 
the cause of death, who put that body there, was it the same person who 
killed her or not? Well, these hypotheses only need to be stated to be 
answered. You will not think, probably, that there was more than one 
person mixed up in this, and probably you will be of opinion that examining 
the question of who killed her answers the question of who buried her. A 
great deal has been said, not unnaturally, by Mr. Tobin as to the skill of 
the man who did it. It has been sworn by the witnesses for the prosecu- 
tion that a man who had studied in anatomical schoolsi and had seen dis- 
section, and had a knowledge of anatomy, would have quite sufficient 
knowledge to do this. Answer by Crippen, not that he has not sufficient 

m 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

knowledge, but that he has not sufficient practical experience, and has 
never done a post-mortem examination in his life. Again, it is entirely for 
you, but, as I have said, in all probability you will be of opinion that the 
person who caused the death of Cora Crippen took steps to get rid of the 
body. That ia the natural thing that a man would do who had committed 
a great crime. 

Now, was she poisoned or was she not? That is entirely for you. You 
have got evidence that every organ was healthy, and you have got evidence 
in the early part of the case that on the night of the 31st January, and on 
the 26th January, and for weeks before, the woman was in perfect health 
and spirits, no suggestion of illness or ailment, and no organ shown to be 
affected. Can you account for death by any natural cause? And, again, 
although Mr. Tobin has cross-examined with great ability as to whether 
the Crown were right in specialising hyoscin, he has not suggested any other 
cause for death than poisoning. It is possible, of course, that the woman 
may have been stabbed, or shot, or something else, but the remarkable 
thing is that there is no wound on the part of the body that is there, 
except what is necessary to separate it from surrounding things, showing to 
a certain extent some medical knowledge, if not very high medical know- 
ledge. The doctors said that there was no wound on any one of the organs 
they examined, there was 1 the heart, liver, and the kidneys, and one or 
two things I need not mention, and there was no wound except what was 
necessary to separate it and take it out. 

Now, the Crown start with their examination. Here I simply endorse 
what was fairly put to you by Mr. Muir. When people are conducting 
an examination by analysis, the result of which could only be established 
by analysis, I do not think it ia right to suggest that it is 1 " unfortunate " 
that they knew that the man had bought hyoscin. They were looking for 
several things. Mr. Tobin did say that he did not mean to pass any 
imputation, and we ought to make great allowance for Mr. Tobin, but I 
do not think, if you are satisfied with Dr. Willoox's evidence, that you 
ought to come to the conclusion that he was influenced one single bit by 
what he knew ; he has sworn he was not. And what did he tell you ? He 
said, " I examined the remains; I took parts of the liver, the kidney, and 
so on; I went through a process which lasted a fortnight or three weeks. 
I first found strychnine and another poison ; of course, I disregarded that ; 
then I tried to see if I could get the alkaloids, and I was able to distinguish 
it as being a vegetable alkaloid. As far as my medical knowledge goes, 
and as far as the medical knowledge of any book produced up to the present 
time goes, Vitali's test, which ia to find out whether an alkaloid is a 
vegetable or an animal alkaloid, is only operative in the three vegetable 
alkaloids atropine, hyoscyamin, and hyoscin ; none of the others gives a 
purple colour." Dr. Willcox says, " I did say that I did not know what I 
was going to find, but I looked to find a vegetable alkaloid, and I found it 
must be a vegetable alkaloid." And remember, upon the question whether 
it might be animal alkaloid, the result of putrefaction, the only man who 
has ever got an animal alkaloid at all from any body, meat, or human 
flesh, is Dr. Luff. Therefore, so far as evidence goes, both of literature 
and fact, there is no witness who has pretended that an animal alkaloid 
has been found to respond with Vitali's test. Then, said Dr. Willcox, " I 
178 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 

had to distinguish between atropine, hyoscyamin, and hyoscin. I applied 
the bromide test; I should have applied the heat test if I could, but you 
do not get in a human body that has been poisoned enough to apply the 
heat testj I could not use it." It is not as if he said he did not know of the 
test, or did not think it a good test, but he could not use it. "I used 
the bromide test, and under that crystals would have come out if it was 
atropine or hyoscyamin, gummy or resinous matter would be produced if 
it was hyoscin ; I found the gummy matter. I tried it again on pure matter, 
with the same result." He also said, before he found the vegetable 
alkaloids, he found that all four of the solutions! were mydriatic, that is 
to say, they affected the eye by paralysing the pupil, and that was not 
disputed as a test by Mr. Tobin. Dr. Willoox further said, " I took genuine 
specimens and applied these tests, and they exactly correspond with what 
I found; " and Dr. Luff said, " I went through the same operations. Dr. 
Willcox'a tests are the best that can be applied, and they produced the 
conclusions that he has vouched." Not one single witness on behalf of 
the defence has ventured to say that that is wrong. Dr. Wynter Blyth, 
who came here, said that he quite agreed that Vitali's 1 test identified the 
vegetable alkaloids, so far as present knowledge was concerned, but he 
said he thought either on the faith of some Italian book or because he 
had changed his opinion that it would be found that there would be some 
animal alkaloids which might give the same results. Gentlemen, it is 
entirely for you. You have got to act upon the evidence, you must ask 
yourselves : have you any doubt that the evidence of Dr. Willcox and Dr. 
Luff is right? That of Dr. Willcox is most important upon this that he 
found hyoscin in the body in the stomach, kidney, intestines, and liver. 

I am not an expert, and I do not pretend to understand these 
things, but what I assume in the suggestion is this, that when hyoscin ia 
given it gets into the blood, and by the blood goes into the various organs, 
and therefore if the person has been poisoned you would expect to get traces 
of it in the various organs. Dr. Willcox says, " In the whole body I 
calculate that there was aa much as half a grain, and that is not denied 
to be a dangerous, in fact. a. poisonous dose, a dose that never ought to 
be given to any human being." If you come to the conclusion that hyoscin 
to that extent, or anything like it, was found in the body, you will have 
to ask yourselves, have you any doubt that that woman, by whomsoever it 
was done, was poisoned by hyoscin? If the cross-examination of Dr. 
Willcox, very properly administered to him by Mr. Tobin, leada you to 
the conclusion that he was mistaken, or anything of that kind, then, of 
course, you may reject his evidence, but for your own satisfaction, if you 
are going to do something of that kind, you probably ought to have some 
theory of your own as to what else caused the death. Because, again, it ia 
not the fault of the defence it may be said to be their misfortune healthy 
organs, healthy woman, if Cora Grippen's remains buried in the grave, no 
cause of death suggested. The one test as to whether it was a vegetable 
alkaloid is said by Dr. Wynter Blyth to have been the right test, and, 
although he says he has changed hia opinion, he has never himself found 
an animal mydriatio alkaloid that acted in the same way under Vitali'a 
test. Given that it ia one of the three vegetable alkaloids, I suppose it 
makes some difference, though not much ; we have not been told how much 

179 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

more or less poisonous atropine is than hyoscin ; it does not matter, because 
nobody denies that if you cannot get enough for the melting point test, 
the bromid^ test is the right one. You must make up your minds whether 
there was hyoscin in the body, and whether death was caused by it. What 
ie the effect of hyoscin poison? How can it be administered? It has a 
bitter taste, but can be readily given in beer, etout, or coffee, or anything 
that disguises the taste. It produces pain at first, delirium, paralysing of 
the pupils, drowsiness, coma, and unconsciousness, and death in anything 
from one to twelve hours. Therefore, from the point of view we are con- 
sidering, what happened in that house? Some one gave Belle Elmore 
hyoscin, and she became unconscious, comatose, and died, and there was 
the dead woman in the house. 

Where did that hyoscin come from? It may be a coincidence, gentle- 
men. It is entirely for you. Are you satisfied with the account the 
defendant has given of what he had to do with the hyoscin bought on 19th 
January never bought before in England by him, never bought since ; two- 
thirds of it used, made up into hundreds, if not thousands, of little tabloids, 
little pieces of sugar, I suppose, or something of that kind, put into 
bottles, kept in a cabinet in hisi room, and the remainder of the hyoscin 
left in his room when he went away. Where are those bottles? You must 
ask yourselves, are you satisfied with that account? He has given his 
account; it is for you to say whether you believe it; but, in any event, 
if you are satisfied that hyoscin was 1 in the body, where did it come from? 

Now, one of your body asked me to put a question with reference to 
the prescription, as to whether or not it ever was given through the mouth. 
In all probability that has not become immaterial, because I think Dr. 
Willcox's evidence went too far ; there does seem to be evidence from the 
book put in this: morning by Mr. Tobin of fifteen years' standing that in 
some cases of mania, and that kind of disease, it was administered by the 
mouth as well as hypodermically. But before I leave this part of the case 
there is another question you must consider, and that is this. Crippen 
gives his evidence himself. He says, " In my practice chiefly I specialise 
in the eye, the ear, the nose, and the throat, or for any of those except 
nervous diseases." It is quite right to ask yourselves, if you are not satis- 
fied with his statement, whether or not he would have had some evidence as 
to those bottles being sent out, other than his own word. Nothing of the 
kind is forthcoming. You will have to ask yourselves whether the Crown 
have satisfied you on the evidence that those were the remains of Cora 
Crippen, that she died from hyoscin poison, that that hyoscin poison was 
administered by the only man who was in the house, there being no 
suggestion that anybody else either had a grudge against the woman or 
ever was there, or under the circumstances could be. 

One word, and it arises upon the account which he has given himself 
of it. Although " prescriptions " have been spoken of, it may be that he 
speaks of prescriptions in another sense. No prescription has been pro- 
duced, and he .says that what he meant was that he prescribed for patients 
by giving them a drug. Now, to all this Mr. Tobin has made two or three 
broad and very strong answers nothing to do with the facts of the case, 
but based upon general considerations. He says, first of all, if he killed 
Cora Crippen (speaking of the 1st February, or the afternoon of the 1st, 
180 









Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



or any time upon the 1st), he never would have taken Ethel Le Neve to 
sleep there upon the 2nd. Secondly, he says, a kind-hearted man would 
not do that kind of thing. Now, I must again caution you, though it has 
been already pointed out by Mr. Muir this is one of the facts which are 
not unimportant it is by no means clear on the evidence that Ethel Le 
Neve did go to sleep there on the night of the 2nd. If she did, it is 
after the letters have been delivered ; still, that is a small point. It is not 
consistent with Mrs. Jackson's evidence, which was that only during 
February did she ever sleep away at all, and that she did not go really 
thoroughly away, or sleep away, that is to say, sleep away every night, 
until March. This is one of the matters on which other evidence might 
have been given. If the defence were going to rely on Ethel Le Neve's 
sleeping there on the 2nd, it would have been much more important, having 
regard to the character of Crippen's evidence, that his evidence on that 
fact should have been supported. 

Now, gentlemen, I have done with the evidence as it bearsi directly 
upon the cause of death. 

I have now a very few words, to say to you upon a most important 
part of the case, and that is the conduct of the accused. From the 2nd 
February till the 8th July he lives his ordinary life, he goes about; he 
does not change his habits. There is some suggestion about his leaving 
his house, which may be quite accidental I should attach no importance 
to that if I were you but he did give you the account of how he wanted 
to leave the house in June. On the 8th July Dew goes to him. Now, 
you have had Inspector Dew's statement put before you, and you heard it 
read more than once. The only important thing in Dew's statement for 
the present consideration is, not the lies that the accused told, 
which he admits now were lies, namely, the letters and all 
the statements about his wife being dead but the things he 
said were true were not consistent with the facts as proved. 
He was at the trouble to show Inspector Dew the jewels, exhibits 7, 8, 9, 
10, and 11 ; you will remember they were handed up to you, and those are 
the same that were found sewn in his undervest when he was arrested at 
Quebec; he was at the trouble to show Dew that his wife must have taken 
the other jewels with her. Now, one has to make every allowance for a man 
in a difficult position; he says, " She had other jewellery, and must have 
taken that with her," but, when you are dealing with a man who is 
supposed to be speaking the truth, and who is asking you to believe that 
his wife had gone away, you cannot forget the fact that he had pawned 
a very considerable portion of that jewellery on 2nd February, the day 
after she disappeared, and on 9th February, seven days afterwards. He 
says, " I have never pawned or sold any jewellery belonging to her before 
or after I left her." He says afterwards, " I thought it was my property." 
It may be that that taken by itself may be so construed ; it may be so 
understood ; but the important thing is that he said that she had taken it 
with her and he follows that up by the statement about pawning. Then 
he says, and I suggest to you that it is one of the most important things, 
" I shall, of course, do all I can to get in touch with her and clear this 
matter up." Gentlemen, on that day he, with the assistance of Inspector 
Dew, drafts an advertisement offering a reward, to be published in the 

181 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Lord Chief Justice 

papers, to endeavour to find Belle Elmore. He never sent it. If he believed 
that his wife could be found, why should not he have sent it ? His answer to 
me yesterday was, " I thought if I got away they would not trouble abovt 
me any more." This is his idea, I suppose, of English justice. 

Now, it has been for years a test applied in these Courts, and it ouglt 
to be applied. How did the man behave when the charge was brought 
against him] You have heard his answers to Mr. Muir, and to his ovn 
counsel, and to me, " I have read romances, and I thought I might be 
arrested and kept in jail for months on suspicion because of my wife's 
disappearance," his story being that she had left him. Gentlemen, we 
are not children, and he is not a child. Is that argument satisfactory to 
you? You have it that, living there in the same name, carrying on his 
business, consorting with Ethel Le Neve for practically six months, the 
day after the inspector goesi to his 1 house he alters his- name and flees 
goes to Antwerp, appears under the name of Robinson, induces Le Neve 
to disguise herself as a boy, passes Le Neve off as his son, and endeavours 
to escape to Canada; and he would no doubt have got there but for Inspector 
Dew being able to catch him. There is probably not much importance 
in what he said to Miss Curnow, " If anything happens to me, please give 
what you have there to Miss Le Neve," except that it is not consistent with 
his going off with Le Neve as he did. This conduct is for you to take into 
consideration; only, of course, if you are of opinion that the Crown have 
established a case to answer, you are bound to take it into jour con- 
sideration. Gentlemen, I do not attach very much importance to what 
he said at Quebec, but there is certainly one expression which it is 
very difficult to reconcile with the facts. He said to Inspector Dew, " It 
is only fair to say she knows nothing about it." What did that " it'* 
mean? Did it mean his statement that his wife had gone away, and that 
he had said she was dead? He said yesterday, " I only told her that my 
wife had left me, and that she was dead." The comments upon that 
Ktatement, gentlemen, you have heard made by the learned counsel ; it is 
for you to stay whether you believe the story about the plot with the 
quartermaster, which you ought to hesitate to believe upon his statement 
alone. It will be for you to say whether that helps him. It is only another 
attempt to fly from justice, if it is so, because his own story is that he 
was going to be smuggled out of the ship and put on shore secretly at 
Montreal. 

Now, gentlemen, I am conscious that in dealing with thia case I 
have not dealt with or referred to every passage of the evidence. After 
such a trial as we have gone through, and the attention we have paid, it 
would be ridiculous to suppose that any summing up would be advanced by 
reading the details of every piece of evidence; far better to point out the 
issues, and to show the portions of the evidence bearing upon the issues 
which the jury have to consider. I end as I began. If you are of the 
opinion that his 1 story of his wife's going away on the 1st February is true, 
verdict of not guilty. If you are of the opinion that the Crown have not 
K\tisfied you that these were Cora Crippen'si remains, poisoned by hyoscin, 
buried and mutilated, verdict of not guilty. But you ought not to hesitate 
from returning a verdict, if you are satisfied upon the evidence, by any fear, 
or suggestion, or doubt, as to what might occur in the future. There haa 
182 



Charge to the Jury. 



Lord Chief Justice 



been ample opportunity for getting hold of Cora Crippen if she is really 
alive. You cannot proceed with the case upon the theory that she is alive 
unless you believe the defendant's story. You will, of course, as I have 
said, look to the fact that the Crown have got to prove their case. You 
will give the benefit of any doubt to the prisoner Crippen; but, if the 
evidence points to the fact that he, and he alone, is responsible for the 
death of his wife, Cora Crippen, you will not hesitate to do your duty. 

[The jury retired at 2.15, and returned into Court at 2.42.] 

The CLERK OF THE COURT Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your 
verdict ? 

The FOREMAN OF THE JURY We have. 

The CLERK OF THE COURT Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty 
of wilful murder? 

The FOREMAN We find the prisoner guilty of wilful murder. 

The CLERK OF THE COURT And that is the verdict of you all ? 

The FOREMAN Yes. 

The CLERK OF THE COURT Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted of 
the crime of wilful murder ; have you anything to say why the Court should 
not give you judgment of death according to law? 

The PRISONER I am innocent. 

The CLERK OF THE COURT Do you wish to say anything ? 

The PRISONER I still protest my innocence. 



Sentence. 

The Usher having proclaimed silence, 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Hawley Harvey Crippen, you have been 
convicted, upon evidence, which could leave no doubt on the minds of any 
reasonable man, that you cruelly poisoned your wife, that you concealed 
your crime, you mutilated her body, and disposed piece-meal of her remains ; 
you possessed yourself of her property, and used it for your own purposes. 
It was further established that as soon as suspicion waa aroused you fled 
from justice, and took every measure to conceal your flight. On the 
ghastly and wicked nature of the crime I will not dwell. I only tell you that 
you must entertain no expectation or hope that you will escape the conse- 
quences of your crime, and I implore you to make your peace with Almighty 
God. I have now to pass upon you the sentence of the Court, which is 
that you be taken from hence to a lawful prison, and from thence to a 
place of execution, and that you be there hanged by the neck until you 
are dead, and that your body be buried in the precincts of the prison where 
you shall have last been confined after your conviction. And may the 
Lord have mercy on your soul ! 

The CHAPLAIN Amen. 

[The prisoner having been removed, his lordship thanked the jury and 
discharged them.] 



183 



APPENDICES. 



Appendix A. 



APPENDIX A. 



CAPTAIN KENDALL'S MESSAGE. 



(From the Daily Mail, July 31, 1910.) 

THE man on board the "Montrose," supposed to be Crippen, answers all the 
descriptions given in the police report, as does also his companion, Miss Le Neve. 

I discovered them two hours after leaving Antwerp, but did not telegraph to 
my owners until I had found out pood clues. I conversed with both, and at the 
same time took keen observations of all points, and felt quite confident as to their 
identity. 

They booked their passage in Brussels as Mr. John Robinson and Master 
Robinson, and came on board at Antwerp in brown suits, soft grey hats, and white 
canvas shoes. They had no baggage except a small handbag bought on the 
Continent. My suspicion was aroused by seeing them on the deck beside a boat. 
Le Neve squeezed Crippen'e hand immoderately. It seemed to me unnatural for 
two males, so I suspected them at once. 

I was well posted as to the crime, so got on the scent at once. I said nothing 
to the officers till the following morning, when I took my chief officer into my 
confidence. He then detected the same suspicious circumstances as myself. I 
warned him that it must be kept absolutely quiet, as it was too good a thing to 
lose, so we made a lot of them, and kept them smiling. 

During lunch I examined both their hats. Crippen's was stamped " Jackson, 
Boulevard le Nord." Le Neve's hat bore no name, but it was packed round 
the rim with paper to make it fit. Le Neve has the manner and appearance of 
a very refined, modest girl. She does not speak much, but always wears a pleasant 
smile. She seems thoroughly under his thumb, and he will not leave her for a 
moment. Her suit is anything but a good fit. Her trousers are very tight 
about the hips, and are split a bit down the back and secured with large safety 
pins. 

You will notice I did not arrest them. The course I am pursuing is the best, 
as they have no suspicion, and, with so many passengers, it prevents any excite- 
ment. They have been under strict observation all the voyage, as if they smelt 
a rat, he might do something rash. I have not noticed a revolver in his hip 
pocket. He continually shaves his upper lip, and his beard is growing nicely. I 
often see him stroking it and seeming pleased, looking more like a farmer every 
day. The mark on the nose caused through wearing spectacles has not worn 
off since coming on board. 

He sits about on the deck reading, or pretending to read, and both seem to be 
thoroughly enjoying all their meals. They have not been seasick, and I have 
discussed various parts of the world with him. He knows Toronto, Detroit, and 
California well, and eavs he is going to take his boy to California for his health 
(meaning Miss Le Neve). Has in conversation used several medical terms. Crippen 
says that when the ship arrives he will go to Detroit by boat, if possible, as he 
prefers it. The books he has been most interested in have been 

"Pickwick Papers." 

" Nebo the Nailer " (S. B. Gould). 

" Metropolis." 

" A Name to Conjure With." 

And he is now busy reading " The Four Just Men," which is all about a murder 
in London and 1000 reward. 

When my suspicions were aroused as to Crippen's identity I quietly collected 
all the English papers on the ship which mentioned anything of the murder, and 

187 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

I warned the chief officer to collect any he might see. This being done, I considered 
the road was clear. I told Crippen a story to make him laugh heartily, to see if he 
would open his mouth wide enough for me to ascertain if he had false teeth. This 
ruse was successful. 

All the " boy's " manners at table when I was watching him were most lady- 
like, handling knife and fork, and taking fruit off dishes with two fingers. 
Crippen kept cracking nuts for her, and giving her half his salad, and was always 
paying her the most marked attention. 

During the evening of July 25, which they spent in the saloon, enjoying songs 
and music, he was quite interested, and spoke to me next morning, saying how 
one song, "We All Walked Into the Shop," had been drumming in his head all 
night, and how his boy had enjoyed it, and had laughed heartily when they retired 
to their room. In the course of one conversation he spoke about American 
drinks, and said that Selfridge's was the only decent place in London to get 
them at. 

On two or three occasions when walking on the deck I called after him by his 
assumed name, Mr. Robinson, and he took no notice. I repeated it, and it was 
only owing to the presence of mind of Miss Le Neve that he turned round. He 
apologised for not hearing me, saying that the cold weather had made him deaf. 

One night he did not appear at the concert in the saloon, and he made an 
apology to me next morning, saying he wanted to come but the young fellow did 
not feel well, and would not let him come, and he did not like to be left alone. 
During the day he would often look at the track chart which shows the ship's 
position, and count the number of days remaining to the end of the passage 

He would often sit on deck and look up aloft at the wireless aerial, and listen 
to the cracking electric spark messages being sent by the Marconi operator. He 
said, " What a wonderful invention it is ! " He said one day that, according to 
our present rate of steaming, he ought to be in Detroit on Tuesday, August 2. 

At times both would sit and appear to be in deep thought. Though Le Neve 
does not show signs of distress, and is, perhaps, ignorant of the crime com- 
mitted, she appears to be a girl with a very weak will. She has to follow him 
everywhere. If he looks at her she gives him an endearing smile, as though she 
were under his hypnotic influence. 

Crippen was very restless on sighting Belle Isle, and asked where we stopped 
for the pilot, how he came off, how far from the pilot station to Quebec, and said 
he would be glad when we arrived, as he was anxious to get to Detroit. 

I had them both in my room talking over various things connected with the 
United States, mostly about San Francisco. Crippen says he does not suppose 
he would know it now, as he had not been there since he was eighteen years of 
age, but how he loved California, and said he thought of settling down on a nice 
fruit farm there. Throughout the whole conversation Le Neve never spoke, but 
gave the usual laugh of response to anything funny, and looked as though she 
would like to give vent to her feelings. (Signed) KENDALL, Commander. 



APPENDIX B. 



PUBLISHED STATEMENT OF Da. CEIPPEN. 



(From the Daily Mail, November 20, 1910.) 

" ABOTJT my unhappy relations with Belle Elmore I will say nothing. We drifted 
apart in sympathy ; she had her own friends and pleasures, and I was rather a 
lonely man and rather miserable. Then I obtained the affection and sympathy of 
Miss Le Neve. I confess that, according to the moral laws of Church and State, 
we were guilty, and I do not defend our position in that respect. But what I do 
188 



Appendix B. 



say is that this love was not of a debased and degraded character. It was if I 
may say so to people who will not perhaps understand or believe a good love. 
She comforted me in my melancholy condition ; her mind was beautiful to me ; 
her loyalty and courage and self-sacrifice were of a high character. Whatever sin 
there was and we broke the law it was my sin, not hers .... 

" In this farewell letter to the world, written as I face eternity, I say that 
Ethel Le Neve has loved me as few women love men, and that her innocence of 
any crime, save that of yielding to the dictates of the heart, is absolute. To 
her I pay this last tribute. It is of her that my last thoughts have been. My 
last prayer will be that God may protect her and keep her safe from harm, and 
allow her to join me in eternity. 

" Surely such love as hers for me will be rewarded. However vile I am, 
whatever faults I may have committed, surely a woman whose love has been beyond 
all womanly loyalty, who though the world has condemned me believes in my 
innocence ; who, though I am scorned by men, holds true to her love and is faithful 
to the last, has a virtue of love which may not be denounced by men who have 
not been so happy as I have been, or by women whose hearts are not big enough 
for such devotion. Remember that she has faced the agonies and tortures of 
being charged with murder, of enduring a long imprisonment, of facing a terrible 
prosecution before her acquittal. Yet she still loves me. Never once has she 
turned against me for all that unwillingly I have made her bear. Is not that a 
wonderful woman's love? 

" Facing my Maker, very close to the hour of my death, I give my testimony 
to the absolute innocence of Ethel Le Neve. She put her trust in me, and what 
I asked her to do she did, never doubting. When I asked her to fly with me 
because of the scandal that would follow the discovery of Belle Elmore's disappear- 
ance, she believed the words I spoke, and said she would go with me and face what- 
ever discomforts might follow. When I suggested the boy's disguise she adopted 
it with a girlish sense of amusement over which there was no shadow of guilt. Poor 
child ! Why should she feel guilty ? She had been overwhelmed with surprise to 
hear that Belle Elmore was still alive. But she had forgotten my first and only 
deception the story of the cablegrams announcing Belle Elmore's death. 

" Her only idea was that we were getting away to a new world and a new 
life, away from prying eyes and gossiping tongues. She was willing to adventure 
all for that, and she still trusted me. I believe she has told in full detail the story 
of her adventures in boy's clothes, and although I have not been permitted to read 
at line of her narrative, I know that every word is true, for she has the heart of 
truth. I feel sure also that she has said no unkind word about me. . . . 

" I make this defence and this acknowledgment that the love of Ethel Le 
Neve has been the best thing in my life my only happiness and that in return 
for that great gift I have been inspired with a greater kindness towards my fellow- 
beings, and with a greater desire to do good. We were as man and wife together, 
with an absolute communion of spirit. Perhaps God will pardon us because we 
were like two children in the great unkind world, who clung to one another and 
gave each other courage. 

" In Rotterdam and Brussels, and during the voyage across the Atlantic on 
the 'Montrose,' Ethel had no suspicion of the tragedy that awaited her. Always 
she was hopeful of the future and full of expectation of the adventures to come. 
Then as a bolt from the blue came the arrival of Inspector Dew, with the appalling 
charges made against us both, followed by our dreadful separation. 

"The world knows what happened afterwards; but what it does not know 
is the agony we both suffered, the frightful torture of two hearts beating one for 
another, yet divided by the most cruel barriers." 



189 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



APPENDIX C. 



LETTER FROM DR. CRIPPEN TO ETHEL LE NEVE. 



(From the Daily Mail, 27th November, 1910.) 

Nov. 22. 

How can I find the strength and heart to struggle through this last letter? God 
indeed must hear our cry to Him for Divine help in this last farewell. 

How to control myself to write I hardly know, but pray God help us to 
be brave to help to face the end now so near. 

The thoughts rush to my mind quicker than I can put them down. Time is 
so short now, and there is so much that I would say. 

There are less than two days left to us. Only one more letter after this 
can I write you, and only two more visits one to-night before you read this letter, 
and one to-morrow. 

When I wrote to you on Saturday I had not heard any news of the petition, 
and though I never at any time had hope, yet deep down in my heart was just a 
glimmer of trust that God might give us yet a chance to put me right before the 
world and let me have the passionate longing of my soul. 

Your letter, written early Saturday, came to me last Saturday evening, and 
<con after the Governor brought me the dreadful news about ten o'clock. 

He was so kind and considerate in telling me, in breaking the shock as gently 
as he could. He was most kind, and left me at last with ' God bless you ! 
Good night,' so that I know you will ever remember him most kindly. 

When he had gone I first kissed your face in the photo, my faithful, devoted 
companion in all this sorrow. 

Oh, how glad I am I had the photo. It was some consolation, although in 
spite of all my greatest efforts it was impossible to keep down a great sob and 
my heart's agonised cry. 

How am I to endure to take my last look at your dear face? What agony 
must I go through at the last when you disappear for ever from my eyes ! God 
help us to be brave then. 

When I received your letter on Sunday evening I saw that you did not then 
know the bad news, and I prayed God to help you in the morning when you did 
learn it. I know what your agony will be, for I know your heart, like mine, will 
be broken. God help us indeed to be brave. 

That is my constant prayer, now that the last refuge to which we had 
looked with some hope has fled. I am comforted at least in thinking that through 
all the years of our friendship never have I passed one unkind word or given one 
reproachful look to her to whom I have given myself entirely for ever. 

I think all our necessary points about business are settled ; but there are 
ne or two things I want to say. If by any possibility you can have my body, 
have it cremated, and dispose of the ashes as you wish. I know you will be the 
only one to mourn for me, which I know will please you ; but do not, dearest, think 
I expect you to put on mourning ; that, my dearest, I leave you to decide on. 
It may not be well for you to do it in going to Mrs. H., and I know that not even 
the deepest of mourning will be more than a faint indication of your grief. 

You have friends to help you. You have at least sufficient means to begin 
the battle of life not destitute nor helpless. How shameful to be hounded in our 
last moments secured to us by newspaper men, and that they should continue to 
publish lies.* 

The Governor was so kind as to let me read yesterday afternoon your story 
and my statement. I am indeed thankful to have been permitted to do so at the 
last. 

I find though that in some way they have omitted that part entirely in which 

*Thi refers to an alleged (and fraudulent) "confession" published by a certain paper. 
190 



Appendix C. 



I criticised the Crown's evidence on the scar, and on the absence of a navel. My 
criticism on this point was important, and I hope you can get it put in next 
Sunday. 

You will remember that the case for the Crown depended on the identity 
which they tried to prove by means of the eo-called scar on the piece of flesh and 
skin, 7 inches by 6 inches. Now, on this piece of skin were found two grooves, 
one as distinctly marked as the other. The medical witness of the Crown made 
no assertion with regard to this piece of skin until they were told that Belle Elmore 
had had an operation. 

Then they suddenly discovered one groove to be a scar, although admitting 
the other groove to be caused by a fold of the skin which had been under great 
pressure, notwithstanding the undoubted fact that one groove was absolutely con- 
tinuous with the other in a curved line. 

The medical witnesses for my defence brought forward proof to support 
their denial that the groove was a scar by demonstrating that there were certain 
structures present in the so-called scar which could not be present if the mark 
had resulted from an operation. 

This proof showed so absolutely that the groove was not a scar of an 
operation that the Crown could only squirm out of their false position by bringing 
forward at the last moment a theory that the presence of these certain structures 
was to be accounted for by the supposition that the edges of the skin had been 
turned under and brought together in sewing up the wound of the operation a 
most unlikely thing to have been done by skilled surgeons, who specially avoid 
such an occurrence in abdominal operations. 

Another point, advanced again at the last moment by the Crown when they 
saw their case weakening with regard to the so-called scar, was the fact that 
the groove was widest/ at its lowest point, just above the pubic bone. This fact 
v 3s emphasised by the Crown's witness as being distinctive of a stretched 
abdominal scar, but for the defence this was denied, the fact being that, anato- 
mically considered, the tendinous or fibrous attachments of the abdomen are 
actually firmest at their attachments to the pubic bone, and if the groove had been 
a stretched scar its widest point would have been much higher up. 

Yet despite the fact having been annulled by my medical witnesses, the 
judge dwelt upon this point as of advantage for the Crown. 

Finally, at Bow Street the Crown's witness accounted for the entire absence 
of the navel by stating that it had been cut out during the operation, but when 
another Crown witness insisted that she had seen the navel on Belle 
Elmore's abdomen, any reference to this having been cut out was most carefully 
avoided at the Old Bailey. 

Now, it is plain to every one that if there exists a navel on Belle Elmore's 
abdomen, the fact that no navel was found on that piece of skin above the so-called 
scar is proof beyond any possible doubt that the remains found at Hilldrop 
Crescent were not those of B. E. 

Yet the judge told the jury to accept the statement of the witness that she 
saw the scar, and to disregard the statement that she saw the navel. 

I write these things in the hope that the unreliability of the case brought 
against me may be understood by thoughtful people. But I want you not to go 
to any further trouble or expense in trying to get further evidence beyond com- 
pleting what correspondence you have begun with medical men here, and with 
the hospital in Philadelphia. 

I want my dear one to keep for her own use all that can be realised by 
the sale of my estate. We can safely leave to the hand of a just God the produc- 
tion later on, if necessary, of further evidence. 

I hope so greatly that you have heard favourably from Mrs. H., and 
that you may soon go to her, where you will be comfortable and made more 
cheerful by the bright sunshine, and be free entirely from the newspaper men and 
their lying tales. 

I feel sure my troubles and worries here will soon be ended, as I shall be 
to-morrow in God's hands, and I have perfect faith. He will let my spirit be with 
you always, and after this earthly separation is finished will join our sonls for ever. 

There will be no time for letters Wednesday morning. 

The rest of this letter shall be sacred to you and me. . . . 

191 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 



APPENDIX D. 



THE TRIAL OF Miss LE NEVE AT THE OLD BAILEY, 
On Tuesday, 25th October, 1910. 



THE trial of Ethel Le Neve on the charge of being an accessory after the fact in 
the murder of Cora Crippen at 39 Hilldrop Crescent, for which Hawley Harvey 
Crippen was sentenced to death, took place at the Central Criminal Court before 
the Lord Chief Justice of England. 

Counsel in the case were Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. 
S. Ingleby Oddie, for the Crown; and F. E. Smith, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Barring- 
ton Ward, for the defence. 

Mr. R. D. Muir, in opening for the Crown, said The prisoner is a typist by 
occupation, some twenty-seven years of age. She is charged in this indictment, 
in effect, with assisting Hawley Harvey Crippen to escape from justice at a time 
when she knew that he had been, guilty of the murder of his wife. The facts of 
the case are for the most part undisputed. My learned friend, Mr. F. E. Smith, 
does not rest any part of his case upon there having been no murder committed, 
or upon any question with regard to Crippen having committed the murder, or the 
murdered person being Crippen's wife. Therefore the great part of this case rests 
upon undisputed facts. The issue to which the evidence for the prosecution 
will be directed will be what was the state of knowledge that prisoner had, 
and what was her intention with regard to the acts which she undoubtedly com- 
mitted? Guilty knowledge and guilty intention are issues in this case, and upon 
such issues a jury can rarely have direct evidence at all. It hardly ever happens 
that the state of a person's mind can be judged by anything but that person's 
actions, and, therefore, you will look at the facts in this case with a view to dis- 
covering what was the knowledge of the prisoner at the time that the acts in 
question were done, and what was her intention with regard to the acts which she 
herself did. Bearing in mind that that is the real issue to which you must direct 
your attention, I will state very shortly the facts. 

Crippen, an American citizen, was carrying on business in this country in a 
quasi-medical capacity. He was in 1909 and 1910 either manager to, or agent for, 
a firm of patent medicine vendors called Munyons, and their business was carried 
on a* Albion House, New Oxford Street. His wife had been on the music-hall 
stage, and was known by the name of Belle Elmore among her friends. They were 
living together at one time on perfectly good terms. They had been putting 
money in the bank, and there was about 600 on deposit either in their joint names 
or in Belle Elmore's name at the Charing Cross Bank in December, 1909. There 
seems to have been a change in their financial position about that time, because 
notice had been given to withdraw the 600 in the bank, and it is quite clear that 
at the end of January and the beginning of February Crippen had got into monetary 
difficulties, and was in urgent need of money. 

Crippen had been carrying on an intrigue with the prisoner Le Neve extending 
over some three years or so. She was a typist in his employment, or in the employ- 
ment of the firm for which he worked, she being a woman ten years younger 
than Crippen's wife. It is quite clear that the prisoner was the motive for the 
murder by Crippen of his wife. It was for the prisoner that he committed 
that murder, in order that he might possess himself of her to a greater extent 
than he had been able to do up till then, and in order also that he might possess 
himself of his wife's property and money, and be able to keep the prisoner. 

Gentlemen, you will have to be satisfied and I submit there will be no difficulty 
on that point that Crippen, in fact, murdered his wife. They had been living 
together at 39 Hilldrop Crescent for some four and a quarter years in January 
of this year. They had a dinner party on 31st January, to which they invited 

192 



Appendix D. 



two friends, Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti, and the party lasted till half-past one the 
following morning. The husband and wife were apparently on the best possible 
terms when Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti left. Cora Crippen was never seen alive by 
any person outside the house after that day. Crippen and she were left alone in 
the house, and the next that was found of Mrs. Crippen was that on 13th July 
her remains were dug up in the cellar of that house, mutilated beyond recognition 
by any ordinary means mutilated with a skill which indicated that the person 
who had done it was trained in anatomy. It wag found upon analysis of the 
organs remaining that she had died of hyoscine poisoning. On 19th January, a 
fortnight or so before his wife disappeared, Crippen had purchased an enormous 
quantity, five grains, of that deadly poison. Upon these facts being proved simply 
to you, and those facts being undisputed, the question then arises as to the 
prisoner's knowledge of that matter. 

For about three years Le Neve had been connected with Crippen in an 
intimate way, meeting him in the daytime, but always going home at night to her 
lodgings with a Mrs. Jackson, in Camden Town. She had lodged with Mrs. 
Jackson from September, 1908, until March, 1910, and there can be no question 
that as between Mrs. Jackson and prisoner there was real affection, and that the 
prisoner looked to Mrs. Jackson as a daughter would look to a mother, and Mrs. 
Jackson as a mother would look to a daughter. That is a very important fact 
when you are considering Mrs. Jackson's evidence. Mrs. Jackson says that about 
January last prisoner began to look ill and troubled, and that one night towards 
the end of January, or in the beginning of February she did not fix any date 
prisoner came home very ill. She would take no supper, and went to bed. Her 
appearance, according to Mrs. Jackson's description, was the appearance of some- 
body who had suffered a great shock, who was stricken with horror at something 
that had happened. Prisoner was asked for an explanation, but little or none was 
forthcoming that night. The next morning, again, this young woman was in the 
same condition. She was practically unable to eat her breakfast, and her con- 
dition was such that Mrs. Jackson saw she was quite unfit to go to her work as 
a typist, and persuaded her to remain at home. 

That was no ordinary illness. It was something which seemed to strike the 
prisoner with horror. Whatever it may have been, it was contemporaneous, or 
nearly contemporaneous, with the murder of Mrs. Crippen. That is a fact which 
cannot be disputed. She was pressed to explain in the course of that day, and 
she gave one or more explanations. One was that she felt her position in regard 
to Crippen while Mrs. Crippen was the lawful wife, and that she could not bear 
to see Mrs. Crippen in lawful possession of the man for whom the prisoner had 
this affection. If that were the true explanation it would fix the date of this 
extraordinary fit of horror at a time when Mrs. Crippen was alive. It speaks of 
Mrs. Crippen as if she were then alive ; but you will have to consider whether 
it is a true explanation or an adequate explanation of the state of the prisoner on 
the night and the morning of which Mrs. Jackson speaks. The explanation, 
so-called, of this extraordinary state of horror was one which would have applied 
to any day of the preceding three years on which no such state of horror existed, 
so far as the prisoner is concerned. You will have to ask yourselves whether 
the true explanation of that state of horror was that the knowledge had come to 
her in some way or other that Crippen had murdered his wife, and that no explana- 
tion such as she offered could explain such a state of things, because the explanation 
refers to a state of things which had existed continuously for some three years. 

Almost immediately after that another change takes place. The prisoner 
becomes cheerful. She says that "the doctor " has promised to marry her. She 
comes home wearing Mrs. Crippen'a clothes and jewels, and makes presents to 
Mrs. Jackson of enormous quantities of the clothing that Mrs. Crippen had left 
behind her. She says that Mrs. Crippen has gone to America, and she and Crippen 
visit Mrs. Jackson on more than one occasion. She also had the knowledge that 
Crippen for a large sum of money had been pawning some of Mrs. Crippen's 
.jewellery. You must ask yourselves, " What is the explanation of this? " Is 
it likely that any woman would suppose that the wife was going away from the 
husband leaving behind her furs, jewels, and everything practically that she had 
in the world, to be worn by any woman to whom Crippen liked to give them? Is 
that a story which, in your judgment as men of the world, any woman would be 

193 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

likely to believe? That is the story which the prisoner put forward as the one 
which she believed as explaining the absence of Mrs. Crippen. You must apply 
your common sense and knowledge of the world to that, and say whether that is an 
explanation which, in your judgment, any woman would believe. 

According to prisoner, Crippen never told her, so far as she could remember, 
whether Mrs. Crippen was coming back or not. But immediately she began to 
wear Mrs. Crippen's jewels and go out in public in them wearing the brooch at a 
dinner and ball of the Music Hall Artistes' Benevolent Fund, a place where all 
Mrs. Crippen's friends would be gathered together. You will have to ask your- 
selves whether there was not in her mind such knowledge that Mrs. Crippen would 
never come back as this indictment imputes to her, otherwise she never would 
have gone about with Mrs. Crippen's husband, wear Mrs. Crippen's clothes and 
jewels, and give away some of Mrs. Crippen's clothing to friends. 

On 12th March she left her lodgings to take up her residence with Crippen 
at the houseln Hilldrop Crescent ; on 24th March she went with Crippen to Dieppe, 
and on 30th March she returned. It was then, she says, that she first learned 
that Mrs. Crippen was dead, although up to this date and after she had been 
acting as if there was no such person in the world. The friends of Mrs. Crippen 
were making inquiries. The stories Crippen told to account for his wife's dis- 
appearance were untrue, and they had found them untrue. Inspector Dew went 
to Hilldrop Crescent on 8th July and found the prisoner in possession. He said 
he had come to make inquiries about Crippen's missing wife. The prisoner, after 
some show of reluctance, took him to Albion House, where, after an interview 
had taken pace between Crippen and the inspector, prisoner made a short state- 
ment to the inspector. It is the only account prisoner has ever given of her 
connection with Dr. Crippen, or with his subsequent flight. She says : " I am a 
single woman, twenty-seven years of age, and am a shorthand typist. My father 
and mother reside at 17b Goldington Buildings, Great College Street, Camden 
Town. My father is a commercial traveller. Since the latter end of February 
I have been h'ving at 30 Hilldrop Crescent with Dr. Crippen as his wife. Before 
this I lived at 30 Constantino Road, Hampstead. I have been on intimate terms 
with Mr. Crippen for two or three years, but I have known him for ten years. 1 
made his acquaintance by being in the same employ as he was. I know Mrs. 
Crippen, and have visited Hilldrop Crescent. She treated me as a friend. 

"In the early part of February I received a note from Mr. Crippen saying Mrs. 
Crippen had gone to America, and asking me to hand over a packet he enclosed 
to Miss May. About four p.m. the same day he came to our business place, 
Albion House, and told me his wife had gone to America. He said she had 
packed up and gone. I had been in the habit for the past two or three years of 
going about with him, and continued doing so. 

"About a week after the had told me she had gone to America I went to Hill- 
drop Crescent to put the i place straight, aa there were no servants kept, but at 
night I went to my lodgings. I did this daily for about a fortnight. The place 
appeared to be all right, and quite as usual. He took me to the Benevolent 
Fund dinner, and lent me a diamond brooch to wear. Later on he told me I 
could keep it. 

"After this he told me she had caught a chill on board the ship and had got 
pneumonia. Afterwards he told me she was dead. He told me he could not 
go to the funeral as it was too far, and she would have been buried before he got 
there. Before he ever told me this I had been away with him for five or six 
days at Dieppe, and stayed at an hotel with him in the namea of Mr. and Mrs. 
Crippen. When we came back he took me to Hilldrop Crescent, and I remained 
there with him. The same night, or the night after, he told me that Belle was 
dead. I was very much astonished, but I do not think I said anything to him 
about it. I have not had any conversation with him about it since. He gave 
me some furs of hia wife to wear, and I have been living with him ever since as 
his wife. My father and mother do not know what I am doing, and think I am 
a housekeeper at Hilldrop Crescent. When Mr. Crippen told me his wife had 
gone to America I don't remember if he told me she was coming back or not. I 
cannot remember if he went into mourning." 

That statement was made on 8th July, and next morning Crippen came to tne 
office and gave instructions to a man named Long to buy a quantity of boy's 

194 



Appendix D. 



clothing. Long afterwards found that the boy'a clothes had been taken away 
from the place where he had left them by Crippen's orders, and that a hat, which 
he recognised as having been worn by prisoner at some time, was left in the 
office. The police went to Hilldrop Crescent and found that Crippen and prisoner 
had disappeared. On 13th July the human remains were found in the cellar, 
and a hue and cry were at once set up. 

It is plain beyond dispute from the facts that I am about to state that Crippen 
and prisoner were flying from justice. They went to Antwerp, and there they 
left for Canada on 20th July by the " Montrose." Between 9th July and 
certainly between 15th and 20th July the newspapers were full of descriptions 
both of Crippen and the prisoner, and their photographs. It is incredible that 
accused should not have had the curiosity to look at the English papers at Antwerp 
and have seen that there has a hue and cry after Crippen and herself. They 
booked on the " Montrose " under false names, and disguised. What could have 
induced the prisoner to take those steps on and after 9th July? What was it the 
prisoner knew which induced her to cut off her hair and masquerade as a boy, 
and condemn herself practically to perpetual silence, because she dare not speak 
in public in the hearing of any person lest her voice should betray her? The 
explanation which lies on the surface of those facts is that the prisoner knew that 
Crippen was flying from justice for the murder of his wife. What other explana- 
tion is there? Absolutely none. When the prisoner was charged on board the 
" Montrose" with being a party to wilful murder she became faint and made no 
reply to the charge. She also said she had neither seen nor knew anything 
about the letter of appeal from her father, published in the newspapers. 

Prisoners were brought back on the " Megantic," and while on that vessel 
Le Neve was charged with murder and also with being an accessory after the fact. 
All she said then was "Yes," indicating that she knew what the nature of the 
charges was. Again, at Bow Street Police Station she made no reply, and before 
being committed by the magistrate for trial upon the present charge she was 
given the opportunity of going into the witness box, and again made no answer 
at all. Gentlemen, is there any explanation which she can offer, except that she 
was flying from justice with Crippen? If there is any other explanation, why 
has it not beeen put forward? It is useless to speculate whether she, being a 
woman, may not have accompanied this man for some other reason. Can she, 
the person who knows whether such an explanation exists, choose to let oppor- 
tunity after opportunity go by and leave the facts unexplained altogether? 

You are left now with the plain explanation lying on the surface of those 
facts, and nothing else. Crippen was flying from justice accompanied by the 
prisoner at the bar, she assisting him to evade pursuit by disguising herself. For 
some reason it matters not what it was decided that Crippen was not to fly 
alone, and she being a source of danger to him unless she disguised herself, she 
made the sacrifices involved. She cut off her hair, dressed as a boy, and passed 
as his son, with a false name, flying to a foreign country by a circuitous route. 
All these things for what reason: For no reason that she offers at all, and I 
submit that, unless and until you get from her, or from somebody else, some 
explanation, the only interpretation you can put upon these acts is the interpre 
tation that she knev of Crippen's crime and she assisted Crippen to escape. 

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. 

Mr. FREDERICK LOWNDES, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS I am the owner of 
the house at 39 Hilldrop Crescent. Crippen was tenant of that house from 
September, 1905, to July, 1910. I knew Mrs. Crippen, who was living in the 
same house with her husband, but I did not know the prisoner. 

Dr. J. H. BURROUGHS, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS I am a registered 
medical practitioner at 169 City Road. I have known Mrs. Crippen since 1902. 
I last saw her on a Wednesday early in January. I also know Mrs. Martinetti. 
I have attended her professionally. I saw her last night. She is suffering from 
influenza, with high :emperature, and is quite unable to attend here this morning. 
She has been ill sines last Tuesday, the day when she gave evidence in this case. 
The first I heard alout Mrs. Crippen was that she was dead. I also heard at 
the same time that she had gone away, and that she had died abroad. 

195 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

Chief Inspector DEW, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS I was at Bow Street 
Police Court when Mrs. Martinetti gave evidence. She afterwards signed the 
depositions, and I now identify her signature. 

Mr. Humphreys then read extracts from the depositions in question bear- 
ing on the present case, including mention of the dinner party at Hilldrop 
Crescent on 31st January ; also the statement of Mrs. Martinetti that on 
20th February she saw prisoner wearing a brooch which she believed Mrs. 
Crippen had worn. 

Mr. Smith next read the material passages from the cross-examination of 
Mrs. Martinetti, as follows : " At the ball I did not speak to Miss Le Neve. 
Afterwards we sat at the same table, with Dr. Crippen between us. Other 
friends at the gathering knew her quite well. Miss Le Neve, I thought, was 
very quiet. At the dinner I did not see her much. The brooch she was 
wearing she wore without any attempt at concealment. Miss Le Neve would 
naturally expect to meet many of Mrs. Crippen's friends at the dinner." 

Miss MELINDA MAY, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS I am secretary of the 
Music Hall Ladies' Guild. Meetings of the committee were held, every Wednes- 
day at Albion House. Mrs. Crippen was a member of the guild. Belle Elmore 
was present at the meeting on 26th January. The next meeting was on 2nd 
February. She was not then present. On that day the prisoner came to me 
and gave me the pass-book, cheque book, and the paying-in book in an open 
envelope. She also gave me two letters. (Shown a quantity of jewellery, a 
brooch, a pair of earrings, and six rings.) I have seen Belle Elmore wearing similar 
jewellery. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SMITH Did you hear that Belle Elmore had gone to 
America and had died? Yes. 

Was there talk about getting a wreath? Yes. 
You were in favour of sending a wreath? Yes. 
Then you accepted the statement that she was dead? Yes. 

Inspector DEW (recalled), examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS Mr. Nash called at 
Scotland Yard on June 30, and from that date inquiries were made with a view to 
tracing Mrs. Crippen. On 8th July I went to Hilldrop Crescent. I asked for Dr. 
Crippen. The French maid opened the door and sent Miss Le Neve. 1 told her I 
wanted to see Dr. Crippen, and she told me he was not in. I told her I was Inspector 
Dew, and asked who she was, and she said she was the housekeeper. 1 asked if 
she were not Miss Le Neve, and she said she was. I told her I wanted to see Dr. 
Crippen in regard to Mrs. Crippen's disappearance, and she said she would tele- 
phone to the doctor. After some demur she agreed to come with me to Albion 
House. She there made a statement, which was taken dowr. and read over to 
her. She then signed it. (Mr. Humphreys read the statement, which is given in 
Mr. Muir's opening speech.) Miss Le Neve, Dr. Crippen, Serjeant Mitchell, and 
I went to Hilldrop Crescent. Miss Le Neve remained in the kitchen while we 
went round the house. Except that some things were packed up, the place was 
in perfect order. While in the house Dr. Crippen showed me some jewellery. 
Dr. Crippen had a rather heavy moustache. He was vearing gold-rimmed 
glasses. The next day I circulated a description of Mrs. Crippen. On llth July 
I went to Albion House, but failed to see Dr. Crippen. I tlen went to Hilldrop 
Crescent, and as I did not find him there I circulated descriptions of Dr. Crippen 
and Miss LPI Neve. These descriptions were circulated all orer the world. On 
13th July I went to Hilldrop Crescent again. On digging up the floor of the 
cellar I came on the human remains. I sent for Dr. Marshall. The remains were 
left there that night, and the next day were removed to the mortuary. I found 
some clothes in the house. They were in three baskets and a box. I identify 
the furs which are produced. f also found a box under tha bed in one of the 
rooms, containing two suits of pyjamas and a single pair of pyjama trousers. I 
also identify Dr. Crippen's medical degree which I found. Warrants were issued 
on 16th July. Subsequently I received certain information, snd went to Canada. 
On 31st July I boarded the " Montrose," and arrested Dr. Crippen. He had 

196 



Appendix D. 



shaved his moustache and had discarded glasses. I then went into cabin No. 5 
and saw Miss Le Neve. She was dressed in a brown suit of boy's clothes. I said 
to her " Miss Le Neve? " and she replied "Yes." I told her that she would be 
arrested and charged with Dr. Crippen with the murder and mutilation of Mrs. 
Crippen. She made no reply. Before reading the warrant to her I cautioned 
her. When told the charge she became faint. I then went back to Dr. Crippen, 
and when he was searched we found upon him two cards and the articles of 
jewellery which he had shown me on 8th July at Hilldrop Crescent. Cabin No. 5 
was also occupied by Dr. Crippen. They went under the names of " John 
Philo Robinson" and "John Robinson." I was present when the captain spoke 
to Miss Le Neve. He said he would do all he could for her. He asked, " Have 
you not seen the letter from your father in the papers? " She said " No. I 
have not seen any papers since I left London. I know nothing about it. If I 
had known anything about it I should have communicated at once." Later on 
she said, " I assure you, Mr. Dew, I know nothing about it. I intended to write 
to my sister when I got to Quebec." On 21st August I again read the warrant to 
her, and she replied " Yes." When the charge was read over at the police station 
she made no reply. The warrant charged her with murder as well as with aiding 
and abetting. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SMITH Have you inquired about her past life? Yes. 
For ten years she has been a shorthand typist. I understand that she has not 
been living with her father and mother for some years. 

What is her father's position in life? He is of the lower middle class. He is 
a canvasser for coal orders. 

You know he wrote some articles for a paper called Answers'! He did, but 1 
did not read them. On 8th July the prisoner showed me all over the house. She 
volunteered the suggestion that I should go over the house and see if Dr. Crippen 
were there. I accepted her word that Dr. Crippen was not there. 

How was the statement at Albion House made? Did you ask her questions? 
On some points, and her answers were incorporated in her own words. I supplemented 
her statement in this way. It was a very lucid statement. Dr. Crippen told me 
that the prisoner knew nothing about it. He said, "It is only fair to say that 
she knows nothing about it. I never told her anything." After my conversa- 
tion with Dr. Crippen in July I circulated a description of Mrs. Crippen. I knew 
the state of the wardrobe which she left behind. Although I knew that she had 
not carried any of her clothes and jewellery away, I circulated this description. 
I circulated the description as that of a missing person. Dr. Crippen told me she 
had taken some jewellery and a basket of clothes. 

How did you circulate the description? We do it consequently. We send it 
round to all the metropolitan police stations, so that the attention of every con- 
stable is drawn to it. Frequently we get information that way. We do not 
send them by post. We have a system of our own. We send them by cart to the 
head stations and they are then circulated. The " Montrose " left Antwerp on 
20th July. 

Dr. AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER, examined by Mr. Mum I am a Master in 
Surgery at the London University and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeone. 
I was called to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, some remains having been found there. In 
addition to the remains there were some Hinde's curlers, a woman's undervest, 
and a piece of a pyjama jacket. I found all the organs, except those of sex. 
I examined the organs to see if there was any natural cause of death, but could 
find none. The head, arms, legs, and bones had been taken away. I found 
amongst the pieces of flesh a piece with a scar on it such as I have frequently 
seen. The remains and the articles found were put in jars and sealed up. 1 
found that the hajr had been bleached. The remains were those of an adult 
person in middle life and rather stout. I should think the length of time they 
had been in the ground would be between four and eight months. The organs of 
the chest had been removed in one piece, attached one to the other as they would 
be in the body. That indicated considerable skill on the part of the person who 
removed them. 

Mr. HAROLD KIRBY, examined by Mr. MUIR I am an assistant of Messrs. 
Lewis & Burrows, and I knew Dr. Crippen as a customer of the firm. On 19th 

197 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

January Dr. Crippen purchased five grains of hyoscine hydrobromide. He had 
never or since purchased hyoscine. He signed the poisons register, stating that 
he required the hyoscine for homcepathic purposes. Never since I have been with 
the firm have they stocked such a large quantity of hyoscine. 

Dr. WILLCOX, examined by Mr. ODDIE I am senior analyst to the Home 
Office. I examined the viscera, hair, under-vest, and piece of pyjama jacket found 
in the cellar. I saw a piece of flesh with a scar on it. I examined the organs for 
poison and I found hyoscine. A quarter to half a grain would be a poisonous 
dose. In my opinion, death was caused by hyoscine poisoning. After the drug 
was administered death would take place probably within twelve hours, without 
any recovery. It had been administered by the mouth. It is rather bitter in 
taste, and it must be taken in something with a pronounced flavour, such as beer, 
coffee, or sweet tea. (a jar was produced, from which witness took the piece of 
pyjama jacket which was found with the remains.) This piece of pyjama jacket 
is similar to the single pair of pyjama trousers. 

Mrs. EMILY JACKSON, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS I am Miss Le Neve's 
landlady. Miss Le Neve came to live with me at Constantino Road, Hampstead, 
in September, 1908, and, except for a break between March and August, 1909, 
stayed at that address until 12th March, 1910. She had a bed-sittingroom. I 
used frequently to go up to Miss Le Neve's bedroom and talk to her there. During 
the latter part of January I observed that there was something strange about Miss 
Le Neve's manner. She became very miserable and depressed. Upon one occasion 
in the latter part of January Miss Le Neve came home looking very tired and 
strange. She was greatly agitated and went to bed without supper. I went into 
the bedroom after her. I could see that her whole body was trembling, and that 
she was in a terrible state. I asked her what was the matter, but she did not 
seem to have strength to speak. I asked her again, and she said she would be 
all right in the morning. She lay down in her bed and I sat beside her awhile, 
and finally left her when I thought she was asleep. That was about two o'clock 
in the morning. Next morning, between eight and nine, I took her a cup of tea. 
The next time I saw her was after nine o'clock. She was then dressed to go out 
to business. She had only eaten a sandwich. She tried to eat but she could 
not. She appeared very ill and was trembling. She picked up a cup of tea and 
tried to drink it, but could not. I said to her, " I can't let you go to Albion 
House like this. There is something the matter with you. I will go and tell 
them you are unfit to go to business to-day." She said, "You will ring up the 
doctor, won't you?" I rang up Albion House, and then went back to Miss Le 
Neve and said to her that she must tell me what was the matter. I said to her 
that I was sure there was something dreadful on her mind, and that if she did 
not relieve her mind she would go absolutely mad. She said, " I will tell you 
the whole story presently." A little while afterwards she said, "Would you be 
surprised if I told you it is the doctor?" I said, "What do you mean; do you 
mean he was the cause of your trouble when I first saw you? " She said " Yes." 
I said, " Why worry about that; it is past and gone: " She burst into tears 
again, and said, "It is Miss Elmore." Up to that time I had never heard the 
name of Miss Elmore in my life. I wondered what she meant, and asked her, and 
she said, " She is his wife, you know. When I see them go away together it makes 
me realise what my position is." I said, "My dear girl, what is the use of 
worrying about another woman's husband? " and she said, " She has been threaten- 
ing to uo away with another man, and that is all we are waiting for, and when 
she does that the doctor is going to divorce her and marry me." I said, "Are 
you sure he will marry you? It seems to me that it is most unfair what he is 
asking." I said to her when she spoke of realising her position, " Why don't 
you tell him what you have told me as regards position." She said she would, and 
she afterwards informed me she had told the doctor, and that he had said he was 
very glad she had done so. I don't think she referred again to her illness and 
agitation. From August, 1909, Miss Le Neve came home regularly, excepting 
when she spent the week-end away with her sister. She began to stay away in 
the early part of February. It would be about the .second week. She only came 
hoilW Hi lllU IHoYnTngS. She came home about a weet after the illness looking very 
happy, and said somebody had gone away at last. That was before she began to 

198 



Appendix D. 



stay out at night. She said she had been at Hilldrop Crescent searching for a 
bank book. In the course of the search certain jewellery had been found, some 
of which had been sold by Grippen, and the money put into his business. I 
received a number of articles of clothing from prisoner. Miss Le Neve first 
began to bring clothing to me during February, and continued to bring me articles 
till the time she left. The articles included a fur coat, a black feather boa, a 
long green coat, a long brown coat, a long black coat, blouses, skirts, nightgowns, 
hats, stockings, &c. The things were brought in cardboard boxes, excepting on 
one occasion, when Miss Le Neve came with Crippen and brought some things 
in a dress basket. Miss Le Neve left my house on 12th March. I visited her at 
Hilldrop Crescent. 

Cross-examined by Mr. SMITH I became very intimate with Miss Le Neve, 
and we were on quite different terms from the ordinary lodger and landlady. 
Miss Le Neve called me "mother." The ordinary routine of the evening was 
that Miss Le Neve came home at six o'clock, had tea with me and my husband, 
sat with us till nine, and then we all had supper. 

By long and frequent conversations with her you acquired an intimate know- 
ledge of her? Yes. 

Did she seem to you to be of a gentle and retiring nature? Yes. She was 
lovable and affectionate to me always. 

Her character generally was sympathetic and kind? So far as I know. 

And you saw a great deal of her? Yes. Miss Le Neve suffered from neuralgia 
and anaemia, and on several occasions was unable to go down to business. She 
suffered at irregular intervals considerable pain and weakness. 

When you give us dates it is a matter of guesswork? I cannot fix dates. 

You did not try to recollect any of these dates till July? You did not attach 
much importance to them? I never gave them another thought. 

When the police came in July you began to think of them? Yes. 

You had read, naturally, every word of the Crippen case? I had not. I was 
overwhelmed by it. I had not finished reading the paper when the police came. 
I could not read it. It seemed too horrible. 

You had mastered the fact that there had been a disappearance, and that 
remains were found in the cellar? Yes. 

Also that Belle Elmore had not been seen by any one alive since 1st February? 
Yes. 

When the police came you began to try to recall what you could of your con- 
versation with Miss Le Neve? Yes. 

Who saw you on behalf of the police? Sergeant Cornish. 

Did he ask you whether you had ever seen anything strange in her manner 
about the end of January? I hardly remember. He asked me whether I had eeen 
anything strange about her manner. 

Are you prepared to tell us now, definitely, that this strangeness of manner 
which you have described did not extend to the whole of January? I do not think 
she became strange till the early part. 

I suppose you mean the 5th, 6th, 7th, and that kind of thing? Something like 
that. 

From 5th, 6th, and 7th January you began to notice something queer? Sh 
began to be miserable and unhappy. 

Did that, as far as you can recollect, react at all on her physical health? It 
made her look very ill. 

So that I may take it that almost the whole of January she was depressed and 
looked very ill. Did you notice anything about her eyes? They were strange 
and very haggard. 

The same kind of look as you saw on the occasion which you have described 
her as being very ill? Yes. 

Did you ask her, before that conversation you have described, what was the 
matter ? Yes. 

A dozen times? Quite a dozen. 

What did she say? That she was worried with the accounts in the office. 

For all you know she may have been? Yes. 

How did you fix the date of this occasion on which you say she was very ill? 
You told my learned friend it was during January towards the latter part. Would 

199 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

you be prepared to say on oath that it may have been as far back as 25th January? 
I could not fix a date. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It may have been as early as that? It may. 

Cross-examination continued You have stated that she came home one night 
more " pleasant " than you had seen her and said that somebody had gone to 
America. If it ia correct that she came back and said this at the beginning of 
February, it would suggest the other conversation when she was so agitated would 
be about 25th January? Somewhere about that. 

You mean she was in high spirits at the beginning of February when you 
say she came back "pleasant "? Yes. 

No trace of anxiety, no depression, no sign of physical ill-health? No. 

She seemed a really happy woman, and oy way of a joke you asked her if 
some one had died and left her money? Yes. 

And she replied that some one had gone to America? Yes. 

Did you know what she meant? She had told me previously that was what 
she was waiting for. 

You knew that Crippen had told her his wife had been threatening to go, 
and it did not surprise you very much? No. 

There was no doubt in your mind that she was genuinely relieved? No. 

You will not in any way bind yourself to a date? No. 

Formal evidence was given as to the pawning of jewellery by Crippen, and 
his insertion of the advertisement in the Era of Belle Elmore's death. 

WILLIAM LONG, who was Crippen's dental mechanic, repeated the evidence he 
gave at the Crippen trial as to purchasing, by Crippen's> orders, a boy's suit, tie, 
shirts, &c. 

In reply to Mr. Smith, witness said he had known Miss Le Neve for nine 
years. She was a gentle and inoffensive girl. 

This concluded the case for the Crown. 

Mr. F. E. Smith announced that he did not propose to call any evidence for 
the defence. 

CLOSING SPEECH FOE THE CROWN. 

Mr. MUIR addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown. He said I stated the 
facts of this case to you so short a time ago, and the evidence has occupied so 
short a space, that it will be quite unnecessary for me to repeat them, except in 
the most summary fashion. There is, first of all, the three years' intrigue between 
the prisoner at the bar and Crippen, the murderer, culminating in January, or 
the early part of February, BO far as Le Neve is concerned, in the remarkable 
scene in her bedroom, as described by Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Jackson did not, and 
could not, fix a date ; but is it not plain that about the time this murder was un- 
questionably committed, namely, somewhere near the early morning of 1st February, 
this remarkable attack of horror and prostration seized the prisoner? That 
was the state of things that Mrs. Jackson spoke to. Within a week of it Le 
Neve has a complete change of demeanour. She comes home happy and relieved, 
bringing Mrs. Crippen's jewels, furs, and clothes, going about with Mrs. Crippen's 
husband, and going to live at Mrs. Crippen's husband's house. 

So the thing goes on. She went to Dieppe with Crippen, and came back and 
stayed at Hilldrop Crescent with him, and was there found on 8th July when the 
police came to inquire about the missing Mrs. Crippen. She knows what the object 
of their inquiry is. She goes with them to Albion House. An interview takes place 
between Crippen and Chief Inspector Dew, and then between her and Chief Inspector 
Dew. She knows that Chief Inspector Dew is inquiring after the missing woman. 
The very next morning she and Crippen are in flight, both disguised, both under 
false names. Flying from what? From the remains which are buried in that 
cellar ; from the accusation against Crippen of the murder of his wife. Le Neve 
was arrested on 31st July. She was told of the charge made against her the 
charge of murder, and the charge of being accessory after the fact. She made no 

200 



Appendix D. 



reply. On 21st August on her way homei she was told the charge, and made no 
reply. On 27th August, at Bow Street Police Station she was told of the charge, 
and made no reply ; and when committed for trial, with every opportunity for 
making a statement she made none. 

Gentlemen, it is left to you to apply your common sense to the facts, and see 
whether any other reason than knowledge on her part that Crippen had murdered 
his wife can account for her silence. I do not think I should be justified in taking 
up your time further. It is for you to say, on these facts, what inference, either 
for or against the prisoner, you will draw from them. 

SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE. 

Mr. F. E. SMITH, addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said I have 
not had an opportunity of addressing you till now, and it will be necessary for 
me to lay before you the circumstances on which I shall rely at some greater 
length than was necessary for my learned friend in addressing you for the second 
time. I think it very essential that you should clearly understand what is the 
nature of the charge here, and what is the proposition I shall venture to say 
before I finish the astounding proposition to which the prosecution in this case 
stands committed. It is, to put it shortly, that in this murder committed by 
Crippen a murder callous, calculated, cold-blooded, a murder which, I say, in 
the whole annals of crime it would be hard to match for cold-blooded deliberation 
the prisoner in the dock was privy to that murder, that she became privy to it 
after its commission with or without all its details. That, and that alone, is the 
issue which you have to determine. 

Did the prisoner, either before she went away with Crippen or at the time she 
went away with him, become aware that Crippen committed this murder? Let me 
repeat here a caution that is very familiar to those of us who practise in these 
Courts, and very necessary to be borne in mind. It is not sufficient for the prose- 
cution to come here and say, " We are an agency for eliciting explanations. We 
come here to invite explanations. We complain that explanations have not been 
forthcoming." It is for the prosecution to convince you beyond all reasonable 
doubt of the truth of the fundamental proposition to which they are committed, 
and that proposition is that this woman became aware that Crippen had killed 
his wife. It is for my learned friend not to invite explanations from me, not to 
indicate as a matter of interest that there is a point obscure here, or a detail in 
regard to which I can assist him by offering an explanation. It is for him to 
discharge the onus, and to discharge it fully. The law places it on him, and 
says, " You shall prove that this woman knew that Crippen murdered his wife." 
It is for you, with the very scanty assistance which my learned friend has been 
able to give you, to ask yourselves the question , " How far have the prosecution 
proved their case? " And in a case in which knowledge of murder is concerned 
one does not, I apprehend, expect a lower standard in the character of the proof 
than in a less important case. Remembering the tremendous character of the 
charge here, remembering the onus which the prosecution are bound to discharge, 
I ask you this question : " Taking the case as a whole, how far has my learned 
friend, in the course of his two speeches, in the course of the evidence which in 
any way affects this prisoner, discharged the onus? " It is a question which 
cannot be answered in a perfunctory manner. 

I suppose no observation in ethics is more familiar than that no one suddenly 
becomes very base. Bearing this in mind, I invite you to consider what is the 
evidence, so far as it goes, about this young woman's antecedents, in order that 
you may have some guidance when you consider how far you can conceivably accept 
the suggestion which the prosecution, on grounds so slender, asks you to accept. 
What has been the history of this young woman before she came into the dock? 
We have indications here and there in the inquiries made by Inspector Dew, in 
the evidence given by Mr. Long, and in the statement by Mrs. Jackson as to the 
life which Le Neve had led for several years before the events which form the 
subject of this inquiry. We know, for instance, that ten or eleven years ago, 
at the age of sixteen or seventeen, an age when I need hardly remind you young 
girls in happier circumstances are going to a finishing governess, it became necessary 
ifor her to earn her own living as a typist. 

201 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

You know what are the temptations to which, under normal conditions and 
with normal employers, a young and attractive girl is exposed going to the city 
as a typist. You know that the road of life is steep and dangerous enough for 
her under normal circumstances. What was the misfortune of this girl, little 
more than a child, when it became necessary for her to earn her living? She had 
the extreme misfortune to come across the path, at the age of seventeen, of one 
of the most dangerous and remarkable men who have lived in this century ; a man 
to whom in the whole history of the psychology of crime a high place must be 
given as a compelling and masterful personality. Carry your minds back ten 
years. Conceive to yourselves the two people wno became acquainted. Crippen, 
imperturbable, unscrupulous, dominating, fearing neither God nor man, and yet 
a man insinuating, attractive, and immoral. That is one of the two people. The 
other was, as I have said, a schoolgirl aged seventeen, an age when most of you 
would be shielding your daughters in happy homes from the world. She was the 
girl who, Mrs. Jackson was able to tell you, years afterwards was a gentle, retiring, 
sympathetic girl. 

What do you conceive the mutual relations of those two, in their origin, were? 
There is no reason whatever to suppose that the intrigue between them has lasted 
more than three years. There is no reason to suppose she was other than chaste 
during the first seven years of her struggle with the world. Then, in measuring 
the moral blame which you rightly assign to the intrigues which were undoubtedly 
carried on in the last three years, you would, I suggest, be doing wrong if you 
excluded from your consideration the circumstances that Crippen was the one really 
important figure looming so largely in her life. 

He was the doctor, and she was the typist. Their relative positions were very 
likely those of the centurion in the Bible who said to his servant, " Do this, 
and he doeth it." Those were the positions. For seven years she was under 
that influence. I ask you to think of the seven years, and now they were spent, 
and contrast them with the lives that you give to your daughters ; seven years 
of drab and dreary toil by day as a typist ; by night a gloomy lodging-house, 
and this in the very dawn of womanhood ! When you are forming your judgment 
on the whole of the case, I ask you not to lay undue weight upon the circum- 
stances of the intrigue. No one can doubt that Crippen soothed her conscience 
l)y telling her either that his wife, Mrs. Crippen, did not love him, or that she 
loved another man, and was threatening to go away with another man. It may 
be true or false, but it is not material. Whether true or false, representations 
of the kind must have been made by Crippen, and they might have been reason- 
ably believed by her at this time. 

I come to the time during which Miss Le Neve was staying with Mrs. Jackson. 
What was Mrs. Jackson's description of her? That she had an attractive dis- 
position, no wickedness, no dissolute habits, no levity or wantonness of conduct, 
so far as she saw, with the exception, of course, of the attraction which Dr. Crippen 
had for her. At the same time we know that she was neuralgic, delicate, and 
a little hysterical. Under such circumstances, I want to ask, " Is it the prose- 
cution's case that Le Neve became aware immediately after the murder that the 
murder had been committed?" Am I asking too much when I say that the prose- 
cution should at least understand their own theory, and at least tell you clearly, 
and not in the alternative, what their theory is? I cannot for the life of me, 
having heard Mr. Muir's two speeches, tell you whether the Crown's case is that 
Le Neve became aware of the murder at or near the time it was committed, or 
whether it is that she became aware of it immediately before she fled. There is 
not the slightest doubt that in his opening speech the case that Mr. Muir intended 
to make was that this woman became aware the murder had been committed at or 
near the time it was committed, and that it was because of her agitation on 
receiving that horrible news that Mrs. Jackson was able to found the observations 
which it was supposed she was going to make in the witness box. 

When I contemplate the position as it has been left now that Mrs. Jackson 
has given evidence with the position when Mr. Muir opened the case, and the 
manner in which he has perfunctorily abandoned it, I am shocked that a charge 
of that character should be brought forward and proceeded with. You have had 
the advantage of seeing Mrs. Jackson in the witness-box. She has told you that 
^iJmost daily during January she noticed the same signs of depression and physical 
ailment. What is the suggestion my learned friend makes now as to the cause 

202 



Appendix D. 



of the depression? Why did not my learned friend, at any rate, give us some 
little guidance on this point. During the whole of January, a month before any- 
thing happened to Belle Elmore, and during which, according to all the evidence, 
husband and wife were living on apparently friendly terms, those same symptoms 
in Le Neve had been diagnosed by the kind-hearted, officious, and somewhat 
garrulous landlady, who for the whole month had been asking questions as to 
what ailed Le Neve. 

Mr. Muir has said it would be wrong to claim for Mrs. Jackson exact precision 
in the matter of dates. That observation bears very much more on the case for 
the prosecution than on the case for the defence. Mrs. Jackson said, not only 
here but before the coroner, that it was in February that the prisoner came home 
looking happier than she had for some time, and announced that " somebody had 
gone to America." Mrs. Jackson, after going through that scene with Le Neve, 
probably thought nothing more about it until July. She was then interviewed 
by the police. By that time she had read all the details of the Crippen case 
in the papers. It is obvious that at that time she knew what was the critical 
part of this case. She was thoroughly steeped in all the melodrama and the 
horror of it. She was asked this question, "Did you notice anything strange 
about Le Neve's manner? " I derived the impression of Mrs. Jackon, that she 
is a lady who would never be defeated by a question of that kind, and thereupon, 
in answer to the leading question, she described the scene which there is every 
reason now to believe took place before the murder. She described it in language 
by no means inconsistent with the view, that the illness of Miss Le Neve was 
largely physical, exaggerated no doubt by depression. Unless the prosecution 
withdrew Mrs. Jackson's evidence altogether, it means that at or about this time 
Le Neve knew that Crippen had murdered his wife. I would ask, is there any 
one of you who is absolutely certain whether the case for the prosecution is that 
Le Neve knew at that time, and if so, by what evidence is it supported? Is there 
one other witness except Mrs. Jackson, or one other shred of evidence, to 
satisfy you that Le Neve became aware of the murder at or near the time of ite 
commission ? 

How could Le Neve have known about the murder? In two ways only. The 
first would be that she fund it out, and the second that Crippen told her. No one 
will suggest that it is likely that she found out. There is not a vestige of evidence 
that she could have done so. That being the case, the prosecution is necessarily 
committed to the view that Crippen told the young woman that he had killed his 
wife. 

If that is eo he must have told her either in broad outline or with a wealth 
of hideous and filthy detail which has occupied this Court for a week. A more 
monstrous and stupid suggestion was never made in a Court of justice. What is 
the position ? Crippen had risked his neck ; he coolly weighed every chance ; 
he did his terrible work on 1st February with no accomplice, no witness, and, as 
he fondly thought, leaving behind him no trace. It is now suggested that the 
man who had done all this who with fiendish and detailed calculation had covered 
up every trace which might reveal and betray his hideous secret told this young, 
nervous woman that he had committed the murder. In other words, he gave this 
enormous hostage to fortune he told a woman that he had killed his wife. If 
the teachings of human psychology have any value, the odds are prodigious that 
any young woman not belonging to the criminal classes, having this horrible 
statement made to her, would receive it with aversion, revulsion, and disgust. 
Does any one suggest that this would not be a possibility which Crippen would 
bear in mind ; that he would realise that a woman, innocent up to now, was 
to be asked by him to become an accomplice to a crime eo horrible that to-day 
it is spoken of in the whole world almost with bated breath? 

My learned friend's case is really this that Crippen would say to Le Neve, 
" This is how I treated the woman who last shared my home, and I invite you to 
come and share it with me now." He ran such risks as men do not run even 
on the wild assumption that when Le Neve was told of the crime she acquiesced 
and agreed to remain silent a wild and incredible proposition. But even suppos- 
ing that Crippen put his neck at the hazard of a woman's constancy and self- 
control, safe, as he thought, by the precautions he had taken, he put his life in 
the hands pf a nervous and hysterical woman. He knew her temperament, and 
yet we are" asked to believe that he put his life on the chance that in a fit of 

203 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

emotion, in her sleep, in fright, to a friend, or aghast at the sheer horror of it, 
she might have told something of the dark and terrible secret which Crippen 
kept to himself and to himself alone. 

From first to last not a single inaccuracy of the slightest importance has been 
found in her statement. She said that Crippen had told her early in February 
that his wife had gone to America, and it is asked whether it is to be supposed 
that in that event she would have left behind all her clothes. It is said it is 
impossible that she believed Mrs. Crippen had gone to America, and yet Inspector 
Dew, an experienced police officer, a man of the world, a man with it wide know- 
ledge of the seamy side of life and of human nature, was so able to believe it 
that he circulated a description of Belle Elmore. If there can be one circumstance 
which suggests innocence more than another, it was the way in which prisoner 
dealt with the clothes and jewellery. It is incredible that if she had known of 
the murder she could have gone about distributing the clothes as she did. If she 
believed that Mrs. Crippen had gone away with another man, she knew perfectly 
well that Mrs. Crippen would not dare to come back. Is the suggestion that she 
wore the brooch at the Benevolent Fund ball consistent with the suggestion that 
she knew a murder had been committed? If she had known, would she have 
gone to the ball, where many of Mrs. Crippen's friends were, appeared with 
Crippen, and worn the very brooch that belonged to the dead woman? 

Now I come to the last point made by the prosecution, the point insisted upon 
by Mr. Muir, that Le Neve fled in disguise with Crippen. What do you suppose 
Crippen said to her before she went away? You may well ask yourselves that. 
Not only have the prosecution not shown that she was told before she went away, 
but I have shown you that she was not told before. The prosecution say that 
if she was not tola before she must have become aware of it when she fled in 
disguise. Before you can draw that conclusion you must satisfy yourself that 
there was nothing else which Crippen could have said to her to induce her to flee in 
disguise. I reject in toto that there is nothing else which Crippen could have 
told her consistent with her innocence in the matter which would have been of 
sufficient weight and urgency to induce her to go away with him. Consfder the 
influence, the dominating influence, which a 'character like Crippen's would exercise 
over her. 

Suppose Crippen had said something like this to her: " Inspector Dew, as you 
know, has asked me some nasty questions about my wife. She had gone away, 
and I do not know where she is, and if she does riot turn up it may be very awkward 
for me, and I may be liable to arrest." Supposing, for the sake of argument, 
that Crippen had said that. Would not that be a circumstance in which one 
can well understand an inexperienced girl would have gone away. You cannot 
consider this as being a case of two adults of equal age dealing with one another. 
They were very different persons. Crippen had acquired this enormous power 
over her, and she was utterly ignorant of the laws of England. She was con- 
fronted with the problem as to whether she would stay in England or go with 
him. 

Already I have ventured to suggest to you that Crippen had not told her 
before, and now I ask you, if I am right in saying that Crippen had never told 
her before, would he tell her now if he could possibly help it Must not the answer 
here be precisely the answer which I think I have shown you must be the answer 
to the first question. Would it have made him safer, even if she had been willing 
to become his accomplice I say to you that the prosecution have not even 
explained what is their theory on this, which is the very fundamental point of 
their case. 

If she was aware of this matter, when do they suggest that she becan 
aware of it On what evidence do they satisfy themselves that she was aware 
of it? Consider whether or not they have satisfied you. They will have to give 
you one good reason why Crippen should have told Le Neve, and I ask you, and 
I am content that my case should be judged by your abilitv to give an answer to 
this question, why should Crippen tell Le Neve? If she found out, then I quite 
agree. But there is not a vestige of proof that she found out. If she had not 
found out, then why in the name of conscience, in the name of security, should 
Crippen have told her? The suggetion is so grotesque that you cannot for a 
moment believe it. 

Does any one believe that the girl went back to live at Hilldrop Crescent 

204 



Appendix D. 



towards the end of February, the month that this murder was committed went 
to live in this house knowing that its last tenant had been murdered by the man 
she was going to live with? Such is the suggestion put to you. Was woman 
ever known so wicked and so abandoned? I say, in all history there have been 
very few women capable of such wickedness. Every vestige of evidence that 
you have in this case as to the character of Le Neve shows that if there had been 
such women in history she is not one of them. You have heard her described 
as a gentle, sympathetic girl. A defenceless child, she maintained herself at the 
age of seventeen in the struggle for life without any indication of moral obliquity, 
and you are asked to say that she went back to live in this house in the immediate 
contiguity of these gruesome remains. 

Another point of evidence is the statement made by Crippen to Inspector 
Dew. What does Crippen say "Miss Le Neve knows nothing at all about it; 
I never told her anything." So far as that statement made by Crippen supported 
any inference in his own case it was against him. It is one of those points against 
Crippen which the prosecuting counsel would rely upon. He knows well enough 
he is charged with murder, and yet what does he say to the police officer? "I 
never told Le Neve anything about it." Therefore, it is against himself, as it 
assents partly to the view that there was some charge which could properly be 
brought against him but of which Le Neve did not know. I would not accept 
Crippen's word very much unless there were other reasons supporting it. I say 
there are other reasons in this case. Crippen, though incriminating himself, 
helped Le Neve. 

There is another point. On the " Montrose " a statement was made by Le 
Neve to the captain in the presence of Inspector Dew. The captain said, " Did 
you not see your father's letter in the newspaper?" Le Neve says, "I have 
not seen any newspapers since I left London." My learned friend says she could 
have seen English papers in Antwerp. Of course, you can see English papers in 
Antwerp if you know where to get them. It is clear that if she did not see the 
English papers she did not know about it, because she cannot read a foreign 
language. And don't you think Crippen took good care that she did not see 
any English papers? " 

I will ask you to picture to yourselves what her life has been for the last 
six months or more. Imagine what her life has been hunted, harassed, arrested, 
and charged with the crime of murder, brought face to face with the full details 
of the charge formulated against Crippen. From that day to this her life has 
been one long horror, culminating in this 1 trial and in the knowledge that the 
man she loved and trusted committed one of the most odious and bloody murders 
in the history of crime. Imagine what she has gone through. 

The prosecution say they want an explanation. That is a wholly novel con- 
ception in our criminal law. It is for the prosecution to prove the fact, and 
1 am not prepared in a case like this and I nave the full responsibility for the 
decision, which ia my own I am not prepared, I say, after what that woman 
has gone through, in the state of health in which she is, to submit her, on facts 
like these and on evidence such as that which has been presented, to the deadly 
cross-examination of my learned friend. It would be different in a case in which 
the prosecution had brought forward massive and weighty evidence, but I have 
to deal here with this case and with this prosecution, and I say that they have not 
proved their case. We are asked to infer that Crippen must have told her about 
the murder. Never in the history of our law has a prosecution asked a jury to 
draw an inference so crazy and so cruel on such facts. 

Knowing that ehe is a young and inexperienced woman, without any know- 
ledge of the world, that she is dazed and shattered, I have taken the responsibility 
upon myself, and I am content to support it. When she leaves this dock acquitted 
by your verdict the prospect which opens out to her is not one of happiness. She 
will be known all over London, and all over England, as one who has been the 
mistress of this murderer. When she leaves the dock, in any event, there must 
be a most unhappy future for her. Let her at least have the satisfaction of 
knowing that she leaves it with the assent of twelve jurymen who have heard 
this case, and who, though not blind to her faults, acquitted her. I do not ask 
you for mercy. I only ask you for justice, and I am content you will judge her 
in her hour of agony with that consideration that you would wish shown to a 
daughter of your own if ehe were placed in the same position. 

Q 206 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

SUMMING UP. 

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said Gentlemen of the jury, I 
must ask you to listen to me for a few moments in this case. It is a case which 
you must approach with very great care. We have just listened to a very able 
speech from Mr. Smith, and some qf his arguments you must consider carefully. 
Let me caution you not to act on anything except evidence. If there was ever a 
case in which it was necessary to steel your minds against prejudice it ia this 
case. You must fix your consideration upon what is found to be proved, on what 
will leave no reasonable doubt in your own minds. If there is any doubt in 
your minds, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit. The Crown have to make 
out their case, and unless in your judgment they have made it out beyond all 
reasonable doubt, and to your satisfaction so that you would adopt it and act 
upon it, in an event in your own lives, then the prisoner, Ethel Le Neve, is 
entitled to have your verdict of not guilty. 

The only matter upon which you have to concentrate your attention is, " Did 
Ethel Le Neve know when she fled with Crippen that Crippen was a murderer 
and had murdered his wife?" You are not to judge Ethel Le Neve because she 
was his mistress. This is not a Court of morals ; this is a Court of law. 

You are not to judge the woman because she has fallen. It would not be 
right for any one to judge the woman from the standard of morality. You must 
consider the case just as if she had not had that history to which reference has 
been made. In so far as immorality and misconduct have bearing on the evidence 
you must consider them, but you are not to allow any prejudice to.enter into your 
minds because this poor woman was seduced, and was the mistress of this man. 
Further, you are not to assume anything against this woman because of the 
wickedness of which Crippen has been guilty. You must sweep from your mind 
anything in the nature of prejudice arising from the fact that she was an immoral 
woman, and that she was associated with Crippen. 

I told you I would state to you the one question on which she is charged, 
and I repeat it. " Did she know, when she assisted Crippen in his flight, that 
he had murdered his wife? " Now, you need not trouble your minds as to 
whether she assisted in the flight. That is not seriously disputed. She joined 
in, so far as she disguised herself, so that she might pass as a boy instead ot as a 
woman, and as Crippen's son. Therefore, if you think she knew of it, you 
will probably have no doubt that she did in fact harbour and assist Crippen. Of 
course, no one is allowed to assist the flight of a person who has committed a 
crime. That a murder was committed on or about 2nd February is beyond 
doubt. Therefore, I say, concentrate your minds and apply your consideration 
to the question. Did she know about it? Again, I say the Crown must satisfy 
you by evidence, and not by suspicion, that she knew of it. It is quite true, as 
Mr. Smith put it to you, they have no right to call for an explanation unless there 
is evidence which leads you to the conclusion that she knew Crippen to have 
committed the murder. 

Now, the affirmative evidence requires to be very carefully examined, and 
examined from a slightly different point of view than was suggested either by 
Mr. Muir or Mr. Smith. It centres mainly upon what has been described as the 
Jackson incident. It is said that on or about the end of January or the begin- 
ning of February, the prisoner was in such a state that, as Mr. Muir put it, 
she must have been under the influence of some horror. Her eyes were staring, 
and her condition such that she could not speak or explain herself. Mr. Muir 
very properly called your attention to that, and if he could have proved that at 
the time she could have known of the murder it would have been a strong piece of 
evidence. You must consider carefully what Mr. Smith addressed to you upon 
the point, when he said that the evidence was not established. I think in his 
remarks he could have gone a little further. 

There are certain facts which are established. The murder took place between 
one or two o'clock on 1st February and twelve o'clock on the morning of the 
2nd. That we know. You remember Mrs. Martinetti stated that she left about 
1.30 in the morning, and that was the last time she saw Mrs. Crippen alive. On 
the 2nd Le Neve told Miss May that Mrs. Crippen had gone to America. The 
2nd of February is the first date when Le Neve could have first known of the 
murder, and when, according to herself, she first knew that Belle Elmore, who 

206 



Appendix D. 



was undoubtedly her rival, had gone away. In the light of that it is very 
important to consider Mrs. Jackson's evidence. Mrs. Jackson says in her cross- 
examination by Mr. Smith that early in February Le Neve said that some one 
had gone to America. She could not have stated that till 2nd February. It is to 
be said in favour of the prisoner that Mrs. Jackson said that very early in February 
Miss Le Neve was in the highest spirits, " higher than I have ever seen her 
before. I think some one must have left her some money." Mrs. Jackson went 
on to say, " I know whom she meant when she said that some one had gone to 
America, because she had told me that Mrs. Crippen had threatened to go away." 

You must consider the agitation spoken of my Mrs. Jackson. You must 
remember that Mrs. Jackson said that about a week after she was so ill she was 
in the best of spirits. She had a long conversation with Mrs. Jackson when she 
was ill. She would not tell her what it was, but if it was a week before 2nd 
February it could not have anything to do with the murder, because on 26th 
January Belle Elmore was alive and attending the committees of the Music Hall 
Guild. On 31st January she was alive, and it is not suggested by anybody that 
she is dead or disappeared till the morning of 2nd February. A week before she 
was in good spirits she has a conversation with Mrs. Jackson, who asks her to 
tell her what is the matter, and she says she cannot. She goes to bed, and the 
next morning she has a further conversation, and finally said, " Would you be 
surprised if it were the doctor? " Then this woman, who is a sensible woman, 
says, " Was it he who got you into trouble before! " Le Neve eays it was. 
"Do not mind about that; it is long past," Mrs. Jackson said. Le Neve said, "I 
cannot bear to see them together. When I see them I feel my position.'' It 
may be that this girl had deep twinges of conscience, and felt her position as 
being the mistress of a married man. Then comes the statement that Le Neve 
had told her that Belle Elmore had threatened to go to America with some other 
man, and that if she did the doctor would divorce his wife and marry her. And 
then this kind-hearted woman says, "Surely you won't. Are you not giving 
up too much for him? " 

If there is nothing but her agitation on a date before 2nd February, then 
there is an end of the case, and I am bound to tell you that you are not to convict 
the prisoner on suspicion. You are to take into consideration the evidence relat- 
ing to events after the time of the murder. The evidence is supported by the 
other fact that Mr. Smith elicited. Mrs. Jackson says that in the latter part of 
January Le Neve was in a bad state of health, but she would not say anything 
about the actual date. If her story is true, that on 2nd February Ethel Le Neve 
came to her and told her " She has gone to America," it must have been because 
Le Neve had been told the same story. This scoundrel was telling the story to 
everybody else, therefore you are entitled to ask yourselves the question, "If he 
was telling other people that story, what reason have you to doubt that he would 
tell her the same story? Why should he tell her a different story? " There was 
no motive for telling her a different story. 

I have to see that you act on the evidence, and if you come to the conclusion 
on the evidence before you that her agitation did not occur after 2nd February, on 
that evidence you are satisfied that it occurred a week before she came back in 
good spirits, there is no other evidence that in that time she was in a state of 
agitation or ill-health. The Crown are bound by their evidence, and the evidence 
of Mrs. Jackson is that it was before 2nd February. 

You want to consider very carefully what is the probability of this scoundrel 
having told her. So far as the evidence is concerned, it stands in this way. When 
he was arrested he said, " It is only fair to say she knows nothing about it. I 
never told her anything." It is perfectly plain that that was a most serious state- 
ment so far as he was concerned. There is no secret about it. Crippen was most 
seriously cross-examined upon it, and he was asked to what it could refer except 
his wicked deed towards his wife. 

I put it to you that it was a statement strongly against himself, although I 
agree that with such a man as Crippen you won't care very much what he says, 
still you must look at it in so far as it relates to this girl. He is saying some- 
thing to shield her,and says it in terms which reflect on himself. He says, " I 
did not tell her anything about it." That he had told her that his wife had gone 
to America and had died you need have no doubt, because of the advertisement 
which he- put in the Era. I am bound to eay that you must ask yourselves if you 

207 



Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

believe that he would have told the woman he wanted to have as his wife if he 
had never told anybody else. Of course, he did not tell anybody else. If the story 
was "My wife has gone to America and subsequently died," there is the explana- 
tion for Le Neve's conduct which in our wicked world was a ready and reasonable 
one, although it may not be one of which you think highly. 

Mr. Muir haa asked you if it is not proved that the prisoner knew of Mrs. 
Crippen's death, as she wore the dead woman's jewellery. You have heard Mr. 
Smith upon that point, and I think you must consider very carefully what he has 
said. Do you think that the fact that she wore the jewels and clothes was con- 
sistent with the fact that she believed that Crippen had cruelly murdered his wife 
a few hours before? As you are asked to draw an inference I must tell you that 
you should only draw an inference that is hostile to the prisoner if you are forced 
to it by an act. Now, gentlemen, it is pointed out that she gave a considerable 
amount of things to Mrs. Jackson. I can only say you must be very careful how 
you act on your suspicions, as she appears to have been very much under the control 
of Dr. Crippen, and you must draw no inference unless you believe that ehe was in 
some way concealing guilt. 

You are asked to judge of her conduct, and I want here to make some observa- 
tions in reference to what Mr. Smith said. You know it is no good concealing 
from you, as you know perfectly well, that a prisoner can give evidence, and 
possibly you may have wished I should not be at all surprised that she had 
gone into the box and said whether or not she knew about the crime. I think it 
is just to her to say there is no obligation on a person to go into the witness-box 
unless there is affirmative evidence against them, and you must not draw a hostile 
conclusion unless you are satisfied that there is an affirmative case to answer. 
That is to say that if you think the incident to which Mrs. Jackson's referred to 
took place before the murder, then there is no reason for her to go into the box. 

As to her disguising as a boy, you must draw your own conclusions, but you 
must be a little careful that you do not think you know too much of what that 
scoundrel may have told her. As Mr. Smith has told you, Crippen may have 
said that he was afraid of being arrested. She undoubtedly was very much 
attached to him, and undoubtedly thought she was going to be his wife, or at any 
rate his mistress. That is one part of the case only, and you may think that some 
further explanation is required. All I can say is that you must be satisfied before 
you draw any inference. 

I must say that another point made by Mr. Smith must not be rejected in 
the summary way suggested by Mr. Muir. Le Neve said on the boat that she 
had not seen the papers since she left London. Mr. Muir went a little too far 
when he said she must have seen the papers in Belgium. You do not know 
where she was when she was in Antwerp. You do not know how far Crippen 
would keep her under his hand and prevent her seeing the papers. There is no 
evidence that she did see the papers. It is said she must have seen the English 
papers at the hotel. Well, the Crown know at which hotel they stayed, and 
they could have called evidence to show if there are English papers taken at that 
hotel. If you come to the conclusion that she did not know that Mrs. Crippen 
was murdered when she evinced that agitation referred to by Mrs. Jackson, then 
you must wipe that from the slate altogether. Then you must ask the question, 
when could Crippen have told her, and why should Crippen have told her at all, until 
the actual moment of flight? Why should he have told her a story different from 
what he told everybody else between 2nd February and 8th July, when Inspector 
Dew came to see mm? 

The fact of this woman living with him and going with him to Dieppe, wicked 
and immoral as it is, is not evidence that he told her he committed the murder. 

Upon that part of the case you are entitled to take into consideration what 
Mr. Smith has said to you about her being gentle, sympathetic, and loving and 
affectionate towards Crippen. If he had told her, not only might it have been 
dangerous to himself, but do you not think that it might have changed her 
feelings towards him? 

Gentlemen, I have called your attention to the parts of the evidence which can 
be said to be evidence against the prisoner. I caution you that you are not to 
judge her upon a standard of morality. You must be satisfied that the Crown 
have made out their case and that Crippen told her he had murdered his wife. 
and until you are satisfied of that, she is entitled to your verdict. You must not 

208 



Appendix D. 



allow your minds to be influenced by what you have heard outside, or by the 
feeling that the prisoner was an immoral woman, and that she had lived as she 
ought not to have lived. She is charged with having assisted her paramour, 
and unless the evidence is there to satisfy you, you must find a verdict for her, 
but if you are satisfied you will do your duty. 

At twelve minutes past four the jury returned to the Court and resumed their 
places in their box. When Lord Alverstone had taken his seat on the bench, the 
Clerk of Arraigns made the formal inquiry as to whether the jury had agreed 
upon the verdict and what the verdict was. 

The foreman replied that the jury were agreed upon a verdict of " Not 
Guilty." 

Accordingly the prisoner was immediately liberated. 



APPENDIX E. 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. 

(Before Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice Channell, and Mr. Justice Pickford.) 
SATURDAY, STH NOVEMBER, 1910. 



Hex v. Hawley Harvey Crippen. 

This was the appeal of Hawley Harvey Crippen, on grounds of fact and of 
law, against his conviction at the Central Criminal Court on 22nd October, 1910, 
before the Lord Chief Justice, for the murder of his wife, Belle Elmore. 

Mr. Tobin, K.C. ; Mr. Huntly Jenkins, and Mr. H. D. Roome appeared for the 
appellant ; and Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. S. Ingleby Oddie 
for the Crown. 

A preliminary point with regard to the juror who was taken ill during the 
trial was taken. The appeal on this point was dismissed. 

THE JUDGMENT. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said that since 
they had decided the first point Mr. Tobin had taken further points in favour of 
his client. 

The first was that the Court ought to quash this conviction because the Lord 
Chief Justice had allowed the prosecution at the close of the case for the defence 
to call what was called rebutting evidence. The rule was that a judge, in con- 
sidering whether he should allow rebutting evidence to be called, should consider 
whether that evidence could have been given, or ought to have been adduced by 
the prosecution as a part of their case and before they closed it. They did not 
feel inclined to lay down the rule in the words of Chief Justice Rindal, in the 
case of Hex v. Frost, vol. 4, State Trials, new series, at column 386 (ubi sup). 
He had said " There is no doubt that the general rule is that, where the Crown 
begins its case like a plaintiff in a civil suit, they cannot afterwards support their 
case by calling fresh witnesses, because they are met by certain evidence that 
contradicts it. They stand or fall by the evidence they have given. They must 
close their case before the defence begins ; but if any matter arises ex improviso 
which no human ingenuity can foresee on the part of a defendant in a civil suit 
or a prisoner in a criminal case, there seems to me no reason why that matter 
which arose ex improviso may not be answered by contrary evidence on the part 

209 



Hawlcy Harvey Crippen. 

of the Crown. They would not put the rule in those words. In the first place 
the rebutting evidence must be evidence admissible in the case. Supposing it to 
be admissible evidence, it then became a question for the judge at the trial to 
determine in his discretion whether the evidence, not having been tendered in chief, 
ought to be given as rebutting the case set up by the defence. 

In coming to that decision he should have regard to what had been laid down 
in the cases cited by Mr. Tobin. But the matter was one within the discretion 
of the judge who presided at the trial, who was in a much better position than 
any appeal Court to determine whether it was really fair to allow it to be given, 
and wnether it did or did not expose the defence to a disadvantage to which they 
ought not to be exposed. It did not appear to have been laid down in any case 
that, if a judge exercised his discretion in a way different to that which a Court 
of Appeal would have exercised it, that fact alone was sufficient ground for quash- 
ing a conviction. The only case where anything of the kind was suggested was 
that of Wright v. Willcox, 1850, 9 C.B., 650, where the Lord Chief Justice had 
said " The time at which evidence is to be received must be in the discretion of the 
judge, the exercise of that discretion being subject to the review of the Court." 
There was nothing in the judgment of the other judges in the case to the same 
effect in the judgments of Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. Justice Creswell, and Mr. 
Justice Talfourd. There was nothing in those judgments as to whether the judge's 
discretion was subject to the review of the Court. Mr. Justice Maule said 
" The objection to the reception of the evidence was that it was offered too late. 
It would be very inconvenient to hold this to be a sufficient ground for setting 
aside a verdict. Cases in which the discretion of the judge must be exercised 
frequently occur. When a party has closed his case he often aska and is allowed 
to supply a deficiency." No doubt the question was one for the discretion of the 
judge at the trial, who was necessarily in a far better position to exercise it than 
the Court of Criminal Appeal could possibly be. 

All they could say was thia: The evidence admitted in rebuttal was admissible 
evidence, and the Lord Chief Justice had seen no reason why, in fairness to the 
defence, it should not have been given. He had exercised his discretion, and, 
even if they had the power to do so, they saw no reason why they should interfere 
with it. But they wished to add a few words to what had been said. If it were 
shown that the prosecution had done something unfair had set what had been 
called a trap which resulted in an injustice to the prisoner, the Court reserved to 
itself full power to deal with the matter. It was only necessary to say that in 
such a case the Court would probably come to the conclusion that there had been 
a miscarriage of justice, and exercise the powers given to them by section 4 of the 
Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. But there was no reason to suppose that anything 
of that kind had taken place here. On this second ground advanced by Mr. Tobin 
they saw no reason to interfere wilh the conviction. 

With regard to the next ground, that there was no proper evidence before the 
jury to establish the fact that the remains found at Hilldrop Crescent were those 
of a woman, and that in any case there was no sufficient evidence to prove they 
were the remains of Cora Crippen with regard to this ground Mr. Tobin in the 
course of his argument went into the evidence given by the doctors on both 
sides as well as into the evidence as to what was found buried with the remains 
the clothing and other articles. They thought that there was evidence before 
the jury, and a great deal of evidence, which would satisfy the verdict at which 
they arrived and to establish the fact that these remains were those of Cora 
Crippen. With regard to the evidence of the doctors concerning the piece of flesh 
and skin, they were not surprised that the jury preferred the evidence given by 
the medical men called for the Crown. For the doctors called for the defence 
when cross-examined had been obliged to abandon an opinion they had expressed 
with confidence and had expressed in writing. They did not wish to say anything 
more by way of criticism than that. They were not surprised that the jury had 
preferred the evidence given by the doctors called for the prosecution. 

It remained for them to deal with the criticism that was directed to the 
summing up. Mr. Tobin had said in the course of the argument that every point 
that had been made on behalf of the prisoner was pnt to the jury and put fully and 
fairly. But he had criticised a phrase used there in the course of a long summing 
up. Sitting in that Court they had often said in similar cases that they would not 
interfere where attention had been called to phrases ambiguously used, or not 

210 



Appendix E. 



expressed quite so fully and clearly, or not expressed with the exactitude which, 
as counsel would point out, might have been used. They must look and see 
whether, taking the summing up as a whole, the judge had put the issue fairly 
to the jury ; whether all the evidence was before them, and whether the judge 
adequately directed the attention of the jury to where lay the burden of proof. 
They thought it waa plain that in this case the Lord Chief Justice 'liad not left 
the jury with any false impression as to the burden of proof. Mr. Tobin had 
argued that that was not so, but he would read one passage from the summing 
up to show how clearly the matter had been put to the jury. The Lord Chief 
Justice had said "Now, gentlemen, I have left that part of the case as I have 
told you. I have dealt with it first because, if you believe the story of the defence, 
it is a conclusive answer to this charge, and you need not trouble about the other 
points . . . and if upon considering the whole of this case you come to the 
conclusion that you are not satisfied with Crippen's account, then you have to 
consider with me whether the Crown have establis/ ed their case upon the two 
issues of Cora Crippen's remains being those found in the house, and of that woman 
having been poisoned by the act of the defendant. Of course, if that is true, it 
is a further contradiction of the story he has told you." In those words the law 
was clearly laid down. The burden of proof lay upon the Crown. If when the 
prisoner had given his account the jury believed it, the case for the Crown 
necessarily came to an end. But if they did not believe it, even then the jury 
were entitled to acquit him because it still remained with the Crown to prove that 
the prisoner killed his wife and that the remains found at Hilldrop Crescent were 
those of Cora Crippen. They thought that, notwithstanding the criticism that 
had been levelled at the summing up, it did put adequately, fully, and fairly the 
complete case for the prisoner, and that no injustice had been done by any term, 
phrase, or sentence used in the summing up. 

They considered that there was ample evidence to support the verdict of the 
jury, and that, on all the points taken, the appeal failed. 

Solicitors For the appellant, Arthur Newton ; for the Crown, the Director of 
Public Prosecutions. 



211 




Sir Alfred Tobin, who 
;it Westminster County 

Court held lliat :i imf- 
' pop off " dill not 
ii.oi.n t.'if disiiiii-i-ii! ot a 
servant. 



in 



' 5 5 

jl 



'g.2. 




I I 




I 



HF 




UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 



A 000911 811 8 



University of California 

SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 

405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 

Return this material to the library 

from which it was borrowed.